The Oregon State Bar (OSB) Information and Referral Service can refer you to an attorney who will handle your case OR they can refer you to a coach. The OSB is exploring more unbundled (aka limited scope) legal assistance options. In the meantime, you can phone them and ask for an attorney to help you with:
* Small Claims Coaching
* Pro Se Coaching
* Document Review
(I previously posted about unbundling, limited scope legal assistance, and lawyers fees here.)
The King County Law Library blogs about More People are Acting as their Own Lawyers, linking to this story:
“More people acting as their own lawyers: Courts clog up as Americans represent themselves, even in complex cases,” updated 2:28 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov. 24, 2008
From the Washington County (Oregon) Law Librarian:
This is a follow-up to my previous post for those of you looking for Oregon legal forms.
Another important place to look for official, court-sanctioned, Oregon legal forms will be in the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) Circuit Court Supplemental Local Rules (SLR). But, you still need to know what you’re doing. Check with the court where you plan to file the documents. And consult an attorney, please. It saves no one any time, money, or grief if you file the wrong form and don’t comply with rules of service.
Also keep in mind, that not every County Circuit Court’s SLR will have forms. My own county has a number of Washington County Circuit Court-specific family law forms, e.g. a Motion to Reset. You may not find this form in another Circuit Court. Your Circuit Court may require you to file a different form!
Public law librarian bloggers just have to love Nolo Press, especially Nolo Blogs. They do so much of our work for us! (But not all of it, I may say – and a good thing too 🙂
Check out the latest info at the Nolo Blog, on Estate Planning (especially the blawg post on cleaning out the clutter (which may be another person’s treasure!), and on Real Estate Tips (especially the post on, wait, they are all interesting!)).
The U.S. Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208), decided June 19th, 2008:
“Held: The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Pp. 4–13.
(a) This Court’s precedents frame the question presented, but they do not answer it. Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402, and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 171, set forth the Constitution’s “mental competence” standard forbidding the trial of an individual lacking a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. But those cases did not consider the issue presented here, namely, the relation of that “mental competence” standard to the self-representation right. Similarly the Court’s foundational “self-representation” case, Faretta, supra—which held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments include a “constitutional right to proceed without counsel when” a criminal defendant “voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so,” 422 U. S., at 807—does not answer the question as to the scope of the self-representation right. Finally … 866 N. E. 2d 252, vacated and remanded. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.” (read in full)
The 2008 edition of the Spanish Language Legal Network Directory is available. It covers mostly the Portland, Salem, Eugene corridor, but attorneys from further afield are included, e.g. Vancouver, Grants Pass, Bend, Jacksonville, and Roseburg.
Spread the word to attorneys you know who might want to be added to future editions.
It is available only in print right now. Copies can be found at public libraries, county law libraries, and some non-profits organizations.
A Hillsboro Argus, January 8th, 2008, opinion piece by Nick Christensen is (yet another) example of how difficult it is and how much time, energy, knowledge, and creativity people need to solve what should be simple consumer problems.
Excerpt from whole story:
“…. And I called lawyers, none of whom would return my call, probably because this was a small claims deal and I am 1,000 miles away. Little do they know how much more eager I am to pay a lawyer than a crook….”
Mr. Christiansen had the aptitude and the knowledge to know how to fight this fight, but that still didn’t save him from the hours and hours he had to spend on the problem and the worry. If anything, his knowledge of consumer matters made it worse. He knew perfectly well how badly this could turn out – all of us in the business know what we’re up against.
A letter by attorney Frederic Cann in the October 2007 OSB Bulletin makes several important points about attorney ghostwriting, the subject of a July 2007 OSB Bulletin article, “The Ethics of Unbundling.”
Here’s an excerpt from the letter:
“The past few years have seen many articles in the OSB Bulletin about ‘unbundling’ legal services. In the consumer law area the expense of full-service legal representation means unbundled legal services are here to stay. However, lawyers providing unbundled legal services in litigation do have to navigate a “minefield,” because they often are unable to control the ultimate use or presentation of their work product.
This Oregon Court of Appeals decision, Milton-Freewater v Ashley (A130586), was decided August 22nd, 2007:
“The circuit court dismissed defendant’s appeal from a judgment of conviction in the municipal court on the ground that defendant failed to file the original notice of appeal with the municipal court and, therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the judgment of conviction. As we explain, ORS 53.030 required defendant to file the original notice of appeal with the municipal court, and her failure to satisfy that requirement precluded the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over her appeal. We review the circuit court’s conclusion for errors of law, and affirm.”
Update: I neglected to include this excerpt from the opinion:
“We conclude that, when a municipal court that has not become a court of record prosecutes state misdemeanor offenses pursuant to ORS 221.339(2), the municipal court is exercising its authority as a justice court. In that situation, where the municipal court acts as a justice court, we apply the statutes that govern appeals from the justice court.”
Oregon Legal Research Blog