Articles Posted in Law Practice & Management

Published on:

By

Oregon State Bar (OSB) Bulletin: June 2009: Duty of Confidentiality: Top 10 Myths, by Helen Hierschbiel, will be interesting for lawyer and client alike. It is another reminder to non-attorneys that you can’t learn the law from watching television shows or reading legal fiction, not that they aren’t fun and I highly recommend you keep enjoying both. But don’t confuse what you see portrayed on the big screen, or the Internet or in a novel, with the actual practice and word of law.

Excerpt: “If there is one duty that virtually all lawyers have ingrained in their psyches, it is the duty to protect their clients’ confidential information. Notwithstanding this basic instinct, myths about the duty abound. In a highly unscientific method called “asking around,” the OSB general counsel’s office compiled the following list of top 10 myths about the duty of confidentiality, and the truth behind these myths….
…
Myth #3: You may reveal your client’s confidences after the client has died.
Contrary to popular belief, the lawyer-client privilege survives the death of the client. The U.S. Supreme Court explained the purpose of this rule in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 407 (1998), saying that posthumous application of the privilege encourages full and frank communication with counsel….” (read full article)

Link to Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility and other sources of information on the regulation of attorneys in Oregon.

Published on:

By

Can a self-represented (pro se) litigant claim “attorneys fees?”

For a discussion of the meaning of attorneys fees in the context of a pro se litigant’s public records lawsuit, I recommend you read the recently decided (June 17) Colby v. Gunson (A133979) (2009).

Excerpt: “Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to attorney fees and costs under ORS 192.490(3) because he is a “person seeking the right to inspect” public records, and he prevailed in the appeal. Defendant contends that the statutory reference to “attorney fees” includes only fees that are charged to a client under a contractual commitment between an attorney and client and not the value of the time invested in the case by a self-represented client. Our determination of the intended meaning of the term “attorney fees” in ORS 192.490(3) is governed by the method described in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as recently modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, ___ P3d ___ (2009) (examination of the text and context of the statute, and legislative history of the enactment when that history appears useful to the court’s analysis)….
…
ORS 192.409(3) does not require that the attorney fees be “incurred.” The statutory construction issue in this case, then, is whether the bare term “attorney fees” implies that same contractual dynamic–a charge by an attorney that a separate entity is obligated to pay. We determine the legislative intent in the use of particular statutory wording by giving words their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning. Haynes v. Tri-County Metro., 337 Or 659, 663, 103 P3d 101 (2004). In common parlance, “attorney fee” connotes a charge for an attorney’s professional services. Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 833 (unabridged ed 2002) defines “fee” to include “compensation often in the form of a fixed charge for professional service or for special and requested exercise of talent or of skill (as by an artist) (a doctor’s ~) (a lawyer’s retainer ~).” Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary 139 (8th ed 2004) defines “attorney fee” as “[t]he charge to a client for services performed for the client, such as an hourly fee, a flat fee, or a contingent fee.” A “charge,” in turn, arises in a transaction between two persons. Webster’s defines “charge” to mean:…” (read full case!)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

I just saw that the print edition of the National Law Journal has a cover story about 18 USC 1346:

DOJ may rein in use of ‘honest services’ statute: Fraud statute up for review was key to many convictions, by Lynne Marek, June 15, 2009

I can write 18 USC 1346 without even looking at the article. In fact, you could nudge me awake in the 17th hour of an 18-hour flight and whisper “right to honest services” in my ear and I’d mumble 18 USC 1346 without hesitation – and then go right back to sleep. (I know. Very sad.)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

I really like this post at MyShingle about how you sometimes can’t know what you are capable of, or what you will like or not like, until you find yourself having to do it. It seems to go without saying, but it doesn’t! We know this is true of food (just taste it, please), sports (just play a little), avocations (mustard of the month, anyone?), but it is also true of work.

Excerpt: “… In my own case, when I started my firm I was a recluse. I never ate lunch with co-workers, preferring the privacy of my closed office. I chafed at the thought of company picnics and social activities where I’d be consigned to idle chit-chat and would never have taken the initiative to call someone up and invite them to lunch. Frequently, I’d grow bored with work and have trouble following through and I was careless with my proofing.

Yet something about starting a firm changed me. Instead of running from company or dreading social or networking activities, I embrace them. I take pride in my work and serving clients in a way that I never felt when I worked for others. I am a completely different person and lawyer (not to mention generally, a far happier one) than the one who reluctantly started a law firm 15 years ago for want of anything better. And it’s solo practice that changed me, not the other way around….” (read full post at MyShingle)

Published on:

By

The newly redesigned Washington County (Oregon) website is up and running, however …

One of the many perils of migrating to a new county webpage is that links from this Oregon Legal Research blog to research guides on the Washington County (Oregon) Law Library’s (WCLL) webpage will be misdirected. Not all of them, but too many. I am slowly making my way through the cleanup, including updating previous blog post links to some of our most frequently used research guides.

Here is the list so far, with correct links for the guides I’ve been told are not linking properly from old posts. (You can also get to these guides from the WCLL webpage.)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

We’ve been getting excellent feedback on the ABA’s “Buying, Selling, Merging and Closing a Law Practice”.

When law partners part amicably, they may find that a how-to book is useful, but when they part less than amicably, they must have a book, forms, checklists, and sometimes more – a referee maybe?

In Oregon, attorneys also have the incomparable PLF staff members who advise Oregon attorneys on all sorts of legal practice, and getting out of practice, issues. New Oregon attorneys don’t automatically think about PLF and about just how many services are provided by the PLF. The PLF really wants to keep you out of trouble so they offer a lot of preventative care! Use them – the PLF, that is.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

I don’t generally put Works in Progress up on this blog, but I get questions about these publications and have been working on the following list in my spare time. But it’s slow going – spare time is a rare gift. It may be useful even in its draft form:

OSB Section Newsletters (periodic): This is only a partial list. New ones will be added over time:

1) Administrative Law section (some newsletters are free online)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Feb/March 2009 issue of the Oregon State Bar (OSB) Bulletin has an interesting editorial by Oregon attorney John Gear: A Better Beginning:

There is no shortage of commentary on the life, death, and value of bar exams (including bar exam humor from Blawg Review), but that is as it should be.

Excerpt: “As a transplant attorney, still fairly new to Oregon, it is with some trepidation and thoughts of tilting at windmills that I write to propose fundamental changes to the state’s bar admission practices. However, after reading the December bar Bulletin, I find I must.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Blogging is a commitment – it’s not a civil (or criminal) commitment, although it sometimes may feel that way, but it’s still something to take seriously (and I also believe civilly), assuming you the blogger want to be taken seriously. You need to blog regularly to keep up the momentum, your own and your readers. (See my previous posts on blogging, here and on public sector blogging.)

But, it can’t be as difficult as trying to trying to come up with a cartoon a day, which has to be up there with having to put out an interesting newspaper every day (with real articles, not just wire stories) or feeding a family 3 meals a day, day after day, week after week, month after …. You get the point, which may not be what you think it is.

Imagine, each and every single day, day after day, week after …, you are introduced to someone as the “funniest person I know,” and each time someone new looks at you as if to say, “ok, say something funny.” How many of us can meet that challenge?! Daily cartoonists do!

Continue reading →
Contact Information
The information provided on the Oregon Legal Research website and blog is for research purposes only. We do not provide legal advice, nor do we endorse any person, product, or company

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Oregon Legal Research
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design