MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
April 3, 1999 - Lake Oswego
Mission Statement: The mission of the Oregon State Bar is to serve justice by promoting respect for the rule of law, by improving the quality of legal services, and by increasing access to justice.
Open Session Minutes
The meeting was called to order by President Johnson on Saturday, April 3 at 8:15 a.m. The open session on Saturday was from 8:15 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. and from 12:10 p.m. to 12:35 p.m. (recessed to the Judicial Proceedings agenda 11:40 a.m. to 12:10 p.m.). All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of Malcolm Scott, Sarah Rinehart (8:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.), and Jim Sumner (12:10 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.). Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; Bob Oleson, Public Affairs Director; George Riemer, General Counsel; Jeff Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel; and Rod Wegener, Chief Financial Officer. Other staff appearing before the board included Jennifer Maldonado, Convention Coordinator, and Barbara Herget, Director of Legal Services
1. Report of Officers
A. Report of the President
1. Meeting with Chief Justice Carson
Mr. Johnson reviewed highlights of the meeting with Chief Justice Wallace Carson which he attended with Mr. Garst, Mr. Oleson and Mr. Riemer on March 1, 1999. The ongoing issue of the status of the bar as a government entity was one of the main topics.
2. Local bar and editorial board visits to Benton, Columbia and Clatsop Counties; visits to Portland law firms; MBA/BOG joint dinner
Mr. Johnson reported on good turnouts and lively discussions at the following local county bar association meetings: Benton County and Clatsop attended by Mr. Johnson, Columbia County attended by Mr. Baldwin, and Clatsop County attended by Ms. Sowle. Ms. Garst commented on her participation in these events and the great job of outreach to the media by Kateri Walsh, Media Coordinator.
Ms. Garst reported she has visited 15 Portland law firms since the first of the year to speak at Brown Bag lunch meetings.
Mr. Johnson commented on the Region 5 BOG/MBA Board dinner held February 25. The two boards discussed ways to work together more effectively. It was suggested that a new approach to the annual outreach event with the members from Multnomah County be considered. It was felt that the breakfast held each fall is well attended, but does not effectively engage the membership in issues before the bar.
3. Report on the 1999 Western States Bar Conference
Mr. Johnson gave an overview of the sessions at the Western States Bar Conference held in San Diego, February 17-20, which focused on technology in law firms and bar associations. He related an interesting presentation on what happened to the California State Bar as a road map on how to do everything wrong.
4. Admissions Ceremony - April 21
Mr. Johnson encouraged board members to attend the Admissions Ceremony on April 21. He indicated that Mr. Hittle will attend in his place at the ceremony.
5. University of Oregon/Affirmative Action update
Mr. Johnson gave a status report on the affirmative action matter at the University of Oregon. He felt there was no indication of racial bias or impropriety on the part of the University of Oregon and that there may have been a misunderstanding of the situation by the Affirmative Action Committee. Ms. Garst will provide copies to the board of the closure memorandum when it is sent to the University of Oregon.
6. Affirmative Action Committee special report
Mr. Johnson reported on steps taken by the Affirmative Action Committee to consider the establishment of a black law firm in Portland and to assist in raising $500,000 to do so. Ms. Garst expressed concern about the Affirmative Action Committee stepping outside the bounds of its charge and that it might be controversial for staff to be involved such a project.
The board discussed ways this effort could be handled outside of bar resources and that a black law firm already exists in Portland. Mr. Baldwin indicated that he and the Policy & Governance Committee would look into the matter.
7. Other events
Mr. Johnson reported that he attended and spoke at Judge Kistler’s investiture. He recently spoke at the Gay and Lesbian Students Association and Career Services Program at Willamette University about two months ago. Since that time he has received other invitations to speak to law students at various campuses.
B. Report of the President-Elect
1. Report from NCBP Mid-Year Meeting and Bar Leadership Institute
Mr. Rew discussed highlights of his written report from the National Conference of Bar Presidents and Bar Leadership Institute. He felt that the NCBP was a good overview of what is happening nationally with the issue of multidisiplinary practice leading the list of concerns.
Mr. Rew indicated that the Bar Leadership Institute is designed to prepare incoming bar presidents and CEOs for leadership and team-building. He was the first OSB president-elect to be able to attend this annual March session in Chicago now that the board elects a president-elect one year in advance. Mr. Rew felt it was a valuable learning experience.
2. Regional HOD meetings
Mr. Rew presented ideas for holding regional meetings with House of Delegates members in the spring or summer. Ms. Garst suggested that holding regional meetings prior to the June BOG meeting might surface resolutions and issues from HOD members early in the process. Ms. Cohen described early outreach as a key element to engage HOD members in a partnership with the BOG. Mr. Riemer indicated that some regional HOD meetings have been poorly attended in the past.
Mr. Rew proposed that BOG members facilitate this outreach to the delegates by contacting local bar associations in their regions. Mr. Harnden discussed ways to contact members of the Multnomah Bar Association (MBA), involve them, and get input to plan a meeting. There was consensus to consider regional meetings in Eastern Oregon, Southern Oregon, Lane County, Marion County and Multnomah County. Ms. Garst and Mr. Riemer will develop scenarios for board consideration.
C. Report of the Executive Director
1. PERS matter regarding the OSB’s governmental status
Ms. Garst provided an update regarding the PERS issue. She indicated the board will need to grapple with the question, 'What is the bar?' The governmental status of the bar has been raised in a number of areas and the board may want to look at clarifying the bar’s legal status legislatively. Ms. Garst also related conversations with Kirk Hall regarding the bar obtaining a private letter ruling from the IRS on its ability to continue to participate in PERS. Mr. Riemer indicated he would report on the private letter ruling matter at the June board meeting.
2. Regional study group to consider streamlining admission rules
Ms. Garst discussed the attached handout from Mr. Riemer which presents problems associated with the requirement for attorneys to pass four bar examinations to be admitted to practice law in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Utah. She asked the board if it wished Mr. Riemer to pursue the matter further. There was consensus to find out whether the other states were interested in pursuing this idea.
EXHIBIT, p. 1-9
2. Appearances/Special Issues
A. Campaign for Equal Justice proposed study
Mr. Harnden reviewed the Campaign for Equal Justice proposals presented by Ron Greenman and Linda Clingan at the board’s work session on Friday, April 2. The Access to Justice Committee will review two proposals for consideration at the June board meeting: (1) request a study to determine and set goals for Access to Justice in Oregon; and (2) develop a bar plan to institutionalize support for the Campaign for Equal Justice. He recommended a needs assessment to determine the cost of the study. Mr. Harnden indicated that the estimated cost of $25,000-$30,000 for the study is only a rough estimate and that an RFP is necessary to firm up the projected cost. A discussion ensued about alternate sources of funding.
Action: The Access to Justice Committee moved to approve in concept the commission of a study assessing the legal needs of low income and modest income Oregonians, with the desire for and expectation of co-sponsorship with the Oregon Judicial Department and the Office of the Governor; to direct the Access to Justice Committee to determine, through the development of an RFP (Request for Proposal) the cost parameters of such a study; and for the Budget and Finance Committee to analyze the financial and budgetary impact of the potential study costs. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
B. Youth Internship Program request
Ms. Maldonado reported on the Youth Internship Program, its history and success to provide junior and senior high school students with paid summer internships in law firms and law related offices. The goals of the program are to provide work experience, exposure to various careers in the legal profession, facilitate better understanding of the justice system and to learn about the role of attorneys. Other benefits include the opportunity for Oregon attorneys to contribute to the community and to student education. Ways for a firm to participate include hiring a full or part-time student worker over the summer or to sponsor work at a legal aid office.
Ms. Maldonado discussed ongoing program support services to train and evaluate students regarding work readiness skills, confidentiality issues, working in a law office environment, and to provide troubleshooting when needed. Law firms also receive orientations regarding working with students and diversity. The program has had a significant positive impact on students. Some are shy when they enter the program and appear more confident and motivated when they depart. The goal is to help a student see future career possibilities. Ms. Maldonado encouraged board members to assist with recruiting law firms to participate in the program.
C. Special BOG election
Mr. Riemer described plans for a special BOG election resulting from mistakenly advertising the impending BOG election as having only one vacancy in Region 5. It turns out that both Mark Johnson’s and David Hytowitz’ terms expire in 1999 (at the close of the HOD meeting on September 18). The election notice will be sent to all members in Region 5, after board approval, and it will be combined with a mailing announcing a judicial preference poll in Multnomah County due to the retirement of several circuit court judges.
Action: Ms. Cohen moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to authorize a special election the fill the Region 5 vacancy on the Board of Governors resulting from the expiration of Mark Johnson’s term in 1999. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
3. BOG Committees, Special Committees, Task Forces and Study Groups
A. Policy & Governance Committee
1. Proposed revision of BOG Policy 11.900 -Keller Arbitrations
Mr. Baldwin presented the recommendation to approve slight changes to BOG Policy 11.900(C), (D) and (F) concerning the procedure and the results of Keller arbitrations.
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to approve revisions to BOG Policy 11.900(C), (D) and (F). The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
2. Consider whether to retain year of admission in OSB bar number
Mr. Baldwin discussed alternatives to resolve the 'Y2K' issue in regards to the bar number issued to new members of the Oregon State Bar. Mr. Wegener explained problems with the current 5-digit year numbering system and programming requirements to allow continuing the use of admission year in the bar number. The cost was estimated at $10,000 to $15,000. The low cost option estimated at $1,500 would use random numbers without the inclusion of the year admitted. Board members expressed the following about inclusion of the year in the OSB bar number: (a) It’s helpful to SPRB members to determine the experience of an attorney. (b) It’s a consumer protection device to determining years of service. (c) Changing the number will cause a ripple effect among the members; but they’ll get over it. (d) The year does not reflect total years of practice, only when an attorney started in Oregon. (e) It’s not an issue with young lawyers.
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to discontinue using the year admitted into membership in the Oregon State Bar from the bar number issued to new members beginning in 2000. The motion failed (7-8-1; no Burrows, Hittle, Hytowitz, Johnson, Lopez, Orf, Rinehart, Tyner; absent Scott).
3. Recommendation to abolish Military & Veterans Affairs Section
Mr. Baldwin discussed the recommendation to abolish the Military & Veterans Affairs Section. He referred to the memorandum received from the section’s chair John Breiling on April 2, protesting the proposal to sunset the section. Options to donate the Military & Veterans Affairs Section account balance were discussed in addition to a grace period for the section to regroup based on BOG Policy. The history of the organization was discussed and it was suggested that the group could continue to meet if it chooses without use of bar resources.
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to disband the Military & Veterans Affairs Section and refund 1999 dues paid to members. Funds remaining in its account after December 31, 1999 will be donated to Veterans Ombudsman (Frank Fryar) with Senior & Disabled Services to support outreach and advocacy efforts. The 1999 year-end account balance will be returned to the Military & Veterans Affairs Section if it qualifies as an OSB section in accordance with BOG Policy by December 31, 1999. The motion was approved by the board (14-1-1; no Burrows; absent Scott).
4. Proposed OSB Law Student Associates
Mr. Baldwin recommended to approve BOG policy to allow law school students to become associates of the Oregon State Bar (shown on the attached exhibit). Ms. Garst indicated that overhead costs to administer this new program will be passed on to the law students. Ms. Cohen asked it this would require staff resources. Mr. Davis indicated that it would and that the associates program would need to be evaluated against the board’s criteria to be developed in the strategic planning process.
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Mr. Rew seconded, to waive the one meeting notice required by Bar Bylaw 4.2(B) in order to take action on proposed BOG Policies 16.100, 16.200 and 16.300. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to approve BOG Policies 16.100, 16.200 and 16.300 to establish Law Students Associates of the Oregon State Bar. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
EXHIBIT, p. 10-14
B. Budget & Finance Committee
1. Revision to BOG Policy 10.102 - Investment Policy
Mr. Rew discussed the proposal to change BOG Policy 10.102 to permit the bar to invest in equities. The revised policy moves from a conservative, fixed income approach to a broader, more balanced, but riskier investment portfolio. The revision also includes modifications to other sections of the policy to be compatible with the inclusions of equities. The draft of the policy precludes the ownership of individual stock and limits equity ownership to mutual funds. Mr. Rew indicated this approach would afford higher returns such as those experienced by the PLF. A question and answer period ensued.
A motion to waive the one-meeting notice to take action on the proposed investment policy change was withdrawn. The board felt it needed more time to consider the matter and this proposal will be placed on the board’s June meeting agenda.
2. Proposed one-time bonus for OSB staff
Mr. Rew discussed the Budget & Finance Committee’s recommendation not to approve the request for a one-time bonus for OSB staff as outlined in agenda exhibit page 62. The committee felt that the bar’s structure is unlike a private corporation and that bar staff are appropriately paid for what they are asked to do. Budget savings in 1998 were attributed to under-spending in various areas, revenues from CLE Programs and the hard work of CLE Publications to reverse a large revenue shortfall projected last fall. Ms. Garst felt it was best to present this special request to the board for approval and thanked the Budget & Finance Committee for its review.
A discussion ensued as follows: (a) The OSB is a non-profit but it’s also a business that is in a profit or loss situation. (b) Spot bonuses were given to selected staff in 1998. (c) The bulk of the revenue and savings came from CLE Programs and CLE Publications. (d) The CEO needs good tools to reward high performance. (e) The bar is ultimately a government entity. It would not sit well with members to distribute $25,000 to staff for recovering a projected loss. (f) It’s a policy decision that cannot be supported because it was not in this year’s budget. (g) The board needs to have confidence in the CEO’s ability to manage the organization. (h) The executive director would be the subject of unnecessary criticism by a vocal minority without BOG approval to distribute such a bonus to staff. A more formal process is best to avoid HOD and member criticism.
No action was taken on the matter.
C. Public Affairs Committee
1. Judicial Branch and budgetary issues at the legislature
Mr. Hittle recognized board members who have made special efforts to contact and meet with legislators – Ms. Cohen, Mr. Tyner, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Johnson. He thanked them for their involvement. The Public Affairs Committee plans to continue its conference call meetings every ten days and will notify all board members in advance to encourage participation.
Mr. Hittle reported that the judicial branch budget is coming up soon before the Ways and Means Committee. He also reviewed the status of other bills related to the role of the judiciary and efforts to monitor them.
2. Lawyer-legislators and other related regulatory issues (including status of MCLE proposals)
Mr. Oleson reviewed the legislative schedule of events including the overall process and issues. Mr. Hittle indicated that the MCLE bill is still pending. He felt it is up the bar to monitor it and to keep applying pressure for some kind of a resolution between the court and the legislature. Mr. Oleson provided copies of a draft letter from President Johnson to Chief Justice Carson on HB 2321 regarding MCLE for lawyer legislators. Input was requested from the board regarding the proposed letter.
3. Policy and law improvement information
Mr. Hittle discussed the status of House Joint Resolution 29 which would amend the constitution to prohibit same sex marriages and affect the rights and privileges of unmarried individuals. The involvement of the bar in this matter raises Keller concerns which need to be assessed.
Mr. Hittle ask if the board wished to take a position to oppose legislation that would weaken the privileges and immunities clause, Section 20, Article 1, of the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Riemer asked the board to discuss the core basis for the bar’s objection to this and other constitutional amendments that arguably do not relate directly to the practice of law, the bar or the judicial system. A lengthy discussion ensued about appropriate ways to respond. Mr. Lopez pointed out that this amendment is attempting to use the Constitution to foster discrimination, and opposition to it aligns with the BOG’s core values of fairness (equal protection). Mr. Orf felt that regardless of how repugnant the proposed amendment is, opposing it presents a serious Keller issue. After further discussion it was decided that the Public Affairs Committee and Mr. Riemer should study this issue further.
Mr. Oleson gave an update on the work of the Procedure & Practice Committee and various damage control issues such as expanding the available defenses for Y2K problems.
D. Access to Justice Committee
1. Recommendations regarding formation of an access to justice network
Mr. Harnden reported that the proposed access to justice network is on hold while efforts are underway to narrow its focus.
2. Proposed April 2000 Access to Justice Conference
Mr. Harnden reviewed the recommendation to plan the next Access to Justice Conference in April, 2000 as shown on the attached exhibit. It is proposed the conference focus on the results of the proposed study assessing the legal needs of low income and modest income Oregonians described in agenda item 2.A.
Action: The Access to Justice Committee moved to approve in concept that the April, 2000 Access to Justice Conference focus on implementation of the results from the study of the legal needs of low income and modest income Oregonians, and a citizens summit on public perceptions of the accessibility of Oregon’s justice system. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
EXHIBIT, p. 15-16
E. Executive Director Review Committee
1. Proposed process/timeline for 1999 executive director performance review
Ms. Sowle reported that the Executive Director Review Committee plans to develop a recommendation for a new executive director evaluation process. It is planned to tie the executive director evaluation into the bar’s strategic planning process being formulated this year. An interim evaluation process will be developed for 1999. Mr. Harnden and Mr. Davis will look for a consultant to develop recommendations for a new executive director evaluation process.
4. Professional Liability Fund
A. Year-End 1998 PLF Report
The PLF had a joint work session with the board on April 2. Mr. Hall presented the PLF Year-End 1998 Report which included the excellent financial results summarized on agenda exhibit page 67-71.
B. Policy 5.200 - PLF Investment Guidelines
Ms. Cohen presented the recommendation to ratify the amendment to PLF Policy 5.200(F) to increase the cap on investments in equities from 40 percent to 45 percent.
Action: Ms. Cohen moved, Mr. Hytowitz seconded, to ratify the amendment to PLF Policy 5.200(F). The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
5. OSB Committees, Sections, Councils, Divisions and Task Forces
A. Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claim No. 98-26 - Anderson v. Linfoot
Mr. Riemer presented the background of the Client Security Fund Committee’s denial of CSF Claim No. 98-26. He explained that Ms. Anderson exercised her right to request BOG review of that decision. A questions and answer period ensued.
Action: Mr. Hytowitz moved, Ms. Rinehart seconded, to deny CSF Claim No. 98-26 - Anderson v. Linfoot. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
B. Legal Services Program Committee
1. Transfer of Funds from Legal Aid Services of Oregon to the Oregon Law Center
Ms. Herget presented the request to transfer funds from Legal Aid Services of Oregon (LASO) to the Oregon Law Center (OLC) as recommended by OSB Civil Legal Task Force. The transfer will redistribute funds and provide more effective legal services to low-income Oregonians statewide. Mr. Baldwin indicated he would abstain from voting because of his role with the Oregon Law Center.
Action: Mr. Lopez moved, Mr. Hytowitz seconded, to transfer funds from Legal Aid Services of Oregon (LASO) to the Oregon Law Center (OLC) as outlined on agenda exhibit page 89. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1-1; absent Scott; abstaining Baldwin).
Ms. Garst asked the board if similar matters from the Legal Services Committee should be sent to a BOG committee for review and recommendation. The consensus of the board was that it was not necessary.
6. Rules and Ethics Opinions
A. Legal Ethics Committee
1. Proposed revision of Formal Ethics Opinion 1991-74, Electronic Recording of Conversations
Ms. Rinehart presented the recommendation of the Legal Ethics Committee to revise Formal Ethics Opinion 1991-74.
Action: Ms. Rinehart moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approve revised Formal Ethics Opinion 1991-74 - Electronic Recording of Conversations. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
2. Proposed Formal Ethics Opinion on Multiple Of-Counsel Relationships
Ms. Rinehart reviewed the proposed Formal Ethics Opinion regarding multiple of-counsel relationships. She explained that the opinion is a clarification regarding conflict of interest issues that can arise when an of-counsel attorney is employed by more than one law firm.
Action: Ms. Rinehart moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approve Formal Ethics Opinion 1999-155 - Multiple Of-Counsel Relationships. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
B. Disciplinary Rules
1. Proposed amendments to DR 5-105(G) and DR 8-101 - Firm Unit Rule
Mr. Riemer presented amendments to DR 5-105(G) and DR 8-101 regarding a lawyer-state officer, lawyer-legislator or a lawyer-legislator’s firm representing a client in any claim against the State of Oregon.
Action: Ms. Sowle moved, Mr. Sumner seconded, to approved the amendments to DR 5-105(G) and DR 8-101. If approved, they will be submitted to the House of Delegates in September, 1999 for approval under ORS 9.490(l). The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Burrows, Scott).
C. Demonstration of competence by reinstatement applicants
Mr. Sapiro presented for the board’s consideration whether to adopt criteria or guidelines to apply in deciding whether BR 8.1 reinstatement applicants should be required to retake and pass the Oregon Bar Examination or complete a prescribed course of CLE credit as a condition of reinstatement. He requested feedback from the board on how it wished to proceed.
The following was discussed by the board: (1) Adopting hard and fast criteria may to tie the BOG’s hands unnecessarily. (2) If these revisions are adopted, members could be given a two-year notice prior to implementation. (3) When members come in from other states the board has the flexibility to recommend CLE requirements. (4) Retaining current discretionary methods and evaluating each reinstatement request on a case-by-case basis would be best. (5) Additional CLE or the bar exam are available under certain circumstances currently. (6) Information about past reinstatement actions would be helpful to assess similar reinstatement requests.
It was suggested to add information about how reinstatement applications are handled during the annual orientation for new board members
No action was taken on the matter. The board will continue its current method of case-by-case review.
7. Consent Agenda
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Mr. Davis seconded, to approve the following consent agenda items to include the wording change described in item 7.D.1. (Item 7.E.1. was removed from the agenda.) The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
A. Reading and approval of January 22, 1999 meeting minutes
B. Appointments Committee
1. Appointment to Legal Ethics Committee
2. Appointment to Multnomah County LPRC
3. Recommendation to Supreme Court for Disciplinary Board Region 4 lawyer member
4. Appointment of Region 3 HOD delegate
EXHIBIT, p. 17
C. Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claim No. 98-44 - Humphrey v. Taub
2. CSF Claim No. 98-5 - Colp v. Taub
D. Budget & Finance Committee
1. Proposal to increase limit on OSB corporate credit card account
Mr. Wegener corrected the wording on the Corporate
Resolution to Borrow or Guarantee form (shown on agenda
exhibit page 158) in the 1st paragraph, as follows:
'I, the undersigned
of the Corporation…'
E. Policy & Governance Committee
1. Revision to Standard Section Bylaws regarding effective date of terms of section chairs
This item was removed from the agenda and will be presented at the June board meeting.
8. Default Information Agenda
Mr. Johnson asked the board if it wished to discuss any items on the following default information agenda. There was no discussion.
A. Report of the President
1. Board Project Status Report
2. Letters from Charles N. Isaak regarding requirements to practice law and mandatory CLE
B. Report of the Executive Director
1. Operations Report
2. Western States Bar Conference and Bar Leadership Conference reports
3. Letter from Theodore C. Carlstrom regarding OSB House of Delegates
4. Request of Francis J. Tepedino to refund 1999 Affirmative Action assessment and convert it into a voluntary contribution
5. Donation to Oregon Historical Society
C. Special Issues
1. Model Limited Representation Agreement
D. Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claims Report
E. Disciplinary Counsel - 1998 Annual Report
10. Good of the Order (Non-action comments, information and notice of need for possible future board action)
A. The timing of the regional bar event at the July board meeting in Medford was discussed. There was consensus to schedule it on Thursday evening, July 22.
B. Mr. Hittle reported on how much he enjoyed participating as a judge in the Classroom Law Project Moot Trial. He highly recommend that other board members become involved in this event in the future.
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
April 3, 1999 - Lake Oswego
Closed Session Minutes
The meeting was called to order by President Johnson on Saturday, April 3, 1999 at 12:10 p.m. All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of Malcolm Scott. Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; Bob Oleson, Public Affairs Director; George Riemer, General Counsel; and Jeff Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel.
Reinstatements - Judicial Proceedings (ORS 192.690(1))
A. Consent Agenda
1. Dianne L. Bagwell - #92026
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Ms. Bagwell pursuant to BR 8.2.
2. Alfred E. Bjorgum - #97447
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Mr. Bjorgum pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Bjorgum’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
3. John P. Bledsoe - #48006
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Mr. Bledsoe pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Bledsoe’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
4. Richard G. Bolin - #87010
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Bolin pursuant to BR 8.2.
5. Rachel Anne Brooks - #96175
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Ms. Brooks pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Ms. Brooks’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
6. Glen H. Downs - #71048
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Downs pursuant to BR 8.2.
7. James C. Horn - #82281
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Horn pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report and payment of $286 bar dues.
8. Steven R. Lastomirsky - #95140
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Mr. Lastomirsky pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Lastomirsky’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
9. M. Elliott Lynn - #76228
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Lynn pursuant to BR 8.2.
10. George M. Naughton - #94394
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Naughton pursuant to BR 8.2.
11. Michael V. Nixon - #89324
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Nixon pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
12. John Robert Oreskovich - #90099
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Oreskovich pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of the balance owing for 1999 active bar dues.
13. Scott A. Shaw - #84090
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Shaw pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
14. Philip M. Suarez - #78495
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Mr. Suarez pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Suarez’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
15. Michael A. Thurman - #85386
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Thurman pursuant to BR 8.2.
16. Kalo Wilcox - #91520
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Ms. Wilcox pursuant to BR 8.2.
B. Further Agenda
1. Linda K. Cadzow - #74064
Mr. Rew reviewed and recommended the reinstatement request of Linda K. Cadzow. He explained that Ms. Cadzow will be assigned a new MCLE reporting period ending December 31, 2000, and will then be cycled into the normal three year reporting group.
Action: Mr. Rew moved, Mr. Hittle seconded, to recommend Ms. Cadzow’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
2. Peter J. Dehlinger - #82040
Mr. Harnden presented Peter Dehlinger’s request for reinstatement. Mr. Dehlinger has been out of the practice of law in Oregon for ten years practicing patent law in California. Mr. Dehlinger will be assigned a new MCLE reporting period ending December 31, 2000, and will then be cycled into the normal three year reporting group.
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Mr. Rew seconded, to waive the one meeting notice required by BOG Policy 2.200 to take action on Mr. Dehlinger’s reinstatement request. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Ms. Sowle seconded, to recommend Mr. Dehlinger’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
3. James S. Drew - #74080
Mr. Hittle presented James S. Drew’s reinstatement application to satisfy the one meeting notice requirement in BOG Policy 2.200.
4. William P. Kralovec - #81283
Mr. Baldwin reviewed William P. Karalovec’s reinstatement application. Mr. Lopez indicated he would abstain from voting because Mr. Kralovec is a personal friend.
Action: Mr. Baldwin moved, Mr. Rew seconded, to recommend Mr. Karalovec’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1-1; absent Scott; abstaining Lopez).
5. James T. Mulhall - #78307
Ms. Sowle reviewed James T. Mulhall’s reinstatement request and noted that Mr. Mulhall had been out of the practice of law since 1991. She indicated that Mr. Mulhall will be assigned a new MCLE reporting period ending December 31, 2000, and will then be cycled into the normal three year reporting group.
Action: Ms. Sowle moved, Mr. Baldwin seconded, to recommend Mr. Mulhall’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
6. A. Deni Starr - #83331
Ms. Sowle reviewed Deni Starr’s reinstatement application, its background and the material recently submitted by Ms. Starr. Ms. Starr’s disciplinary record included her suspension in 1995 and in 1998. Ms. Sowle stated that she carefully reviewed the materials and investigation findings to determine whether Ms. Starr had carried her burden to demonstrate the requisite character and fitness to practice law.
Mr. Lopez reported that he had been contacted recently by Ms. Starr for a personal reference and he declined.
Action: Ms. Sowle moved, Mr. Baldwin seconded, to recommend to the Supreme Court that Ms. Starr’s reinstatement application be denied. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1-1; absent Scott; abstaining Lopez).
7. Richard H. Werschkul - #74336
Mr. Orf presented the reinstatement request of Richard H. Werschkul. Ms. Cohen commented on his non-practice experience and that Mr. Werschkul is being hired as a executive based on his business experience. Mr. Orf felt this matter represented an example of why it is important for the bar to have discretion in assessing a reinstatement application.
Action: Mr. Orf moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to waive the one meeting notice required by BOG Policy 2.200 to take action on Mr. Werschkul’s reinstatement request. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
Action: Mr. Orf moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to recommend Mr. Werschkul’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court, and to temporarily reinstate Mr. Werschkul pursuant to BR 8.7. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Scott).
Litigation - Executive Session (ORS 192.660(1)(f) - to consider exempt records) and
(ORS 192.660(1)(h) - to consult with counsel)
A. Information on possible attorney fees claim in the Judicial Council Initiative matter
Mr. Riemer informed the board of the possibility that the bar could ask for attorney fees from the State in it’s the Judicial Council Initiative case. He reviewed the history of the matter and estimated that fees were in excess of $20,000 in this law suit. The board was informed of the recommendation of attorney Jim Mountain on this question.
The board was informed that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Rew, Ms. Garst and Mr. Riemer will discuss this matter further with Mr. Mountain. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Rew will then decide what to direct Mr. Mountain to do.
B. Status Report
A status report of the following matters was included on the agenda:
1. Erwin v. OSB (Clackamas County Circuit Court).
2. McKinlay v. Schrunk et al. (US District Court for Dist. of Oregon Case No. CV 97-1502-ST).
3. Rider v. Cosper et al. (Baker County Circuit Court Case No. 97-608).
4. Arnold v. Marandas, et al. (US District Court for Dist. of Oregon Case No. 98-706-AS).
5. Kluge v. OSB (Marion County Circuit Court)..
6. Eardley v. Garst, Hubbard & Raines (US District Court for the District of Oregon).
7. Macy v. Sapiro (Clackamas County Circuit Court