MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
June 5, 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, June 5 at 8:10 a.m. The open session on Saturday was from 8:10 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and from 1:10 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. (recessed to the Judicial Proceedings agenda 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.; and recessed to the Executive Session agenda from 12:30 a.m. to 1:10 p.m.). All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of Mary McCauley Burrows and Jim Sumner all day; Sarah Rinehart from 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.; and Joyce Cohen and David Orf from 12:25 p.m. to 1:15 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. Also appearing before the board were Lynn Nagasako, Rich Cecchetti, and Nancy Moriarty.
1.Report of Officers
A.Report of the President
1.Meeting with Chief Justice Carson
Mr. Johnson reported on the May 4 meeting with Chief Justice Carson he attended with Ms. Garst, Mr. Oleson and Mr. Riemer. Matters discussed included MCLE credit for legislators, the Judicial Department budget, legislative matters related to UPL and the appointment and election of judges. Details of the meeting are in the agenda exhibit.
2.Local bar and editorial board visits with county bar associations - Eastern
Oregon and Southern Oregon, Douglas, Lincoln, Mid-Columbia,
Tillamook and Washington
Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the local bar visit schedule in April and May which involved visits to 14 county bar associations. The meetings were well attended and included discussion of issues before the bar including legislative matters, access to justice issues, and media relations projects. Mr. Johnson and Kateri Walsh, Media Coordinator, conducted the April trip to the Southern Oregon county bar associations. Mr. Rew attended the meetings in Deschutes, Lake and Klamath Counties. Mr. Orf participated in meetings in Josephine and Jackson Counties. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Garst and Mr. Rew visited the Eastern Oregon county bar associations in May.
Ms. Garst commented on Ms. Walsh’s success with new media contacts in Southern Oregon.
B.Report of the President-Elect
1.ABA Report on Multidisciplinary Practice (MDP)
Mr. Rew reviewed the ABA’s recommendations regarding multidisciplinary practice to be published on June 8 and voted on in August by the ABA House of Delegates. A discussion ensued regarding whether the OSB should respond to the ABA’s recommendations. The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) will review the matter. Mr. Davis indicated that MDP was planned to be used as a model for emerging issues by the SPC. Mr. Johnson asked that further discussion of MDP be placed on the July BOG agenda and asked that the SPC bring a recommendation to the BOG on whether the BOG should advise its delegates regarding this matter.
Mr. Rew previewed the proposed Citizens Conference outlined in item 3.D.2. He recommended that one or two BOG members participate on the steering committee. The intent is for the conference to be organized outside the bar so it does not look like a Citizens Conference run by lawyers. The Honorable Ellen Rosenblum will continue to head up this effort.
C.Report of the Executive Director
1.BOG Special Meeting – August 10
Ms. Garst reminded board members to calendar the BOG conference call meeting scheduled August 10 at noon to approve the House of Delegates agenda.
2.Legal Aid Service of Oregon (LASO) attorney fees award
Ms. Garst reported that LASO was recently awarded $1 million in attorney fees resulting from litigation regarding Social Security benefits.
3.TV Public Service Announcement Series - Judge and Jury Program
Ms. Garst reported on the work of the Communications Department to develop a series of television spots to educate the public about the law and the legal system in two areas: (1) Judge and jury program. (2) Public Service Announcements (PSA) on the 30-Second Law School.
A.Joint meeting with Oregon Law Foundation
Lynn Nagasako, Oregon Law Foundation President, reported on the financial status of OLF and its programs. Income is down 3% from 1998 and grants of $1,150,000 are comparable to 1998. She discussed the good health of the reserve and the OLF endowment fund. The OSB dues check off for OLF contributions resulted in increased contributions from $12,000 in 1995 to $45,000 in 1995 from 2,800 bar members. Ms. Nagasako reviewed recent IOLTA litigation and an IRS private letter ruling related to client interest in attorney trust accounts.
OLF’s relationship with the Oregon Bankers Association is strong due to OBA’s focus on relationship banking and community service. Recent meetings with OBA have resulted in a reduction in paperwork for the banks that handle IOLTA transactions.
Ms. Nagasako described futures issues being addressed by the OLF Board: (1) Stabilizing funding for grantees; (2) determining the relationship of OLF with other groups such as the Campaign for Equal Justice and access to justice efforts; and (3) raising the profile of the OLF to make its work better known throughout the community. She thanked the BOG for its ongoing support of the Oregon Law Foundation. A question and answer period ensued.
B.House of Delegates
1.Issues for 1999 HOD meeting
The board discussed proposed delegate resolutions, one to abolish the HOD and the other to rescind the bar’s reserve policy. Mr. Riemer mentioned DR amendments including one that may be proposed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section. Other proposed topics included a possible ethics CLE on Multidisciplinary Practice (MDP) and a discussion about the independence of the judiciary. Ms. Sowle cautioned against placing too many additional items on the HOD agenda due to unfavorable feedback from last year’s meeting.
Discussion continued about the future of SJR7. It will be an item on the July board agenda.
2.Plans for regional HOD meetings
The board discussed ideas for the HOD regional meeting agenda. Ms. Garst and Mr. Riemer were asked to develop the agenda to include DR amendments, the resolution process and its timelines, and the MDP issue. Regional HOD meetings are scheduled starting June 15 through July 22 as shown on the attached exhibit.
EXHIBIT, p. 1
3.BOG Committees, Special Committees, Task Forces and Study Groups
A.Policy & Governance Committee
1.Program advisory committee charges for 1999-2000
Mr. Baldwin presented the Policy & Governance Committee’s recommended program advisory committee charges for the OSB committees listed in the following motion. The revised charges reflect the true nature of program committees. Specific assignments include BOG approved program outcomes. Ms. Garst indicated that the charges will be revised as needed to align with evolving program outcomes. A concerted effort has been made to clarify that the role of committees is advisory in nature to the programs.
Action:The Policy & Governance Committee moved to approve the 1999-2000 charges for the following program advisory committees: Affirmative Action, Client Security Fund, Continuing Legal Education, Lawyer Referral and Modest Means, Legal Ethics, Public Service and Information, and Unlawful Practice of Law. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Burrows, Sumner).
2.Proposed revision of the 2000 OSB fee statement
Mr. Baldwin reviewed the recommendation to revise the 2000 OSB fee statement to omit the separate statement of the affirmative action and client security fee assessments and include them in the total membership fee. The board discussed the change. Some concern was expressed about the appearance of no longer showing the breakout of fees. It was explained that every member gets the detail of how the money is spent with the fee resolution that is mailed out with the HOD agenda. Mr. Lopez commented that in the early years of the Affirmative Action Program there was concern about keeping the fee amount separate to make members aware that it was not part of the general fund, but that this concern is not longer an issue.
Action:The Policy & Governance Committee moved to approve revision of the 2000 OSB fee statement to omit the separate statement of the affirmative action and client security fee assessments. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Burrows, Sumner).
3.MBA proposal to seek Attorney General opinion regarding referral fees
`for funding LRS
Mr. Baldwin presented the need to consider the concept of referral fees as a funding source for the OSB Lawyer Referral Service (LRS), separate and apart from any legislative issues surrounding how such a program would be implemented if approved by the board. Mr. Rew indicated that the Lawyer Referral Committee reviewed the matter, felt that lawyer referral did not need to produce income or make a profit, and voted it down. The LRC feels LRS is doing a very good job and it has expanded the modest means program. Comments in favor of not supporting referral fee funding for LRS included the following: (a) The LRS is doing an outstanding job without increased funding. (b) OTLA does not plan to participate. (c) This is a Multnomah Bar Association fund raising proposal. (d) Supporting this concept in additional funding would open a Pandora’s box in the legislature.
Action:Mr. Hytowitz moved, Ms. Rinehart seconded, to not support the concept of referral fees as a funding source for the OSB Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) and to not seek an Attorney General’s opinion or to seek legislative action on the matter. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Burrows, Sumner).
B.Budget & Finance Committee
1.Proposed funding for the Access to Justice study
Mr. Rew presented the background of the Access to Justice study proposed by the Access to Justice Committee, recommended the study be conducted by Michael Dale, and that up to $40,000 from the bar’s contingency fund be allocated to the study. Mr. Baldwin commented on Mr. Dale’s exceptional qualifications and that other consultants deferred to Mr. Dale when he expressed his interest. Ms. Garst asked how staff could assist in administering the study and whether Mr. Dale would need assistance with data analysis. Mr. Harnden indicated the proposed budget would allocate $35,000 to the study and $5,000 for analysis and other expenses.
Staff will work out the necessary contract arrangements with Mr. Dale. Mr. Harnden explained that the study would take six months or less to complete and the report would be available at the January, 2000 BOG meeting.
Mr. Johnson inquired about the study cost expanding from $25,000 to $40,000 and about proposed co-sponsors. Mr. Harnden explained that no response has been received to the letter sent to the Governor asking for assistance. He indicated that Chief Justice Carson will be asked about providing staff assistance to support the study.
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 from the 1999 contingency fund to fund the Access to Justice Study. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Burrows, Sumner).
Refer to related action in item 3.D.3.
2.Revision to BOG Policy 10.102 - Investment Policy
Mr. Rew discussed the background of the proposed investment policy, using the Professional Liability Fund’s policy as a model, and recommended its approval. The new policy is an opportunity for the bar to balance stable fixed-income interest rates and the good return in equity market. It is important to consider ways to improve the return on the bar’s invested fund and create a more diversified portfolio. Discussions with the PLF and its investment advisor, Russ Kuhns of R.V. Kuhns & Associates, have been valuable to help the bar revise its policy and address prudent investment standards, guidelines and benchmarks. The board discussed the matter at length.
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to revise BOG Policy 10.102 - Investment Policy as shown on the attached exhibit. The motion was approved by the board (13-0-2-1); absent Burrows, Sumner; abstaining Rinehart).
EXHIBIT, p. 2-3
C.Public Affairs Committee
1.Status of SJR 7 and related judicial appointment/election measures
Mr. Hittle reported that SJR7 has passed out of the Senate and is currently in the House. The bill proposes an amendment to the constitution regarding the creation of a commission for the selection and appointment of judges. He commented on efforts by concerned groups of attorneys and business professionals asking others to contact their legislators. An aggressive effort is being made to turn the measure into an interim study project.
2.Judicial branch budget issues and judgeships
Mr. Hittle mentioned that Judicial Department budget cutting may pit increased judgeships against increased salaries and benefits for judges. Mr. Oleson commented that, as a best case scenario, three or four new judgeships might be phased in toward the end of the biennium. The board discussed the process and role of the Public Affairs Committee in judicial matters.
3.Update on PLF effort to clarify child abuse reporting law
Mr. Hittle reviewed the status of the Child Abuse Reporting Law (HB 2226-A), the Public Affairs Committee’s support of the bill, and Kirk Hall’s testimony before the House Judicial Criminal Law Committee on February 23. The bill would broaden the scope of individuals responsible for reporting child abuse to all adults. Although the subject was reviewed by the Public Affairs Committee, there is now concern that Mr. Hall’s testimony on behalf of the PLF went beyond law improvement. The bill was amended to preclude a right of action for violation of this statute. It has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. By letter it has been communicated to Chair Bryant that the bar does not support the bill.
The board discussed at length whether Keller or related considerations are a concern because the issue may be divisive within the bar, about Mr. Hall’s comments differing from what the committee thought its position was, and plans for the Public Affairs Committee to address its process in this regard. Mr. Hittle indicated that this issue and the legislative role of the PLF will be discussed by the committee in post-session debriefing. A letter from President Johnson to Senator Bryant will be drafted to indicate the board’s neutrality on the bar bill because it may be highly divisive within the Oregon State Bar.
4.Policy and law improvement information
Mr. Hittle reviewed policy and law improvement items on the Public Affairs Committee’s tracking sheet.
5.CLE credit for lawyer legislators
Mr. Hittle recommended the board authorize Mr. Johnson to send a letter to Chief Justice Carson supporting an amendment of the MCLE rules as follows: Legislative Service: Two credit hours per month for each full month of service as a member of the Oregon Legislative Assembly while it is in session. The legislature is moving forward with a bill of its own on
this topic and it would be preferable if the Supreme Court a rule allowing this type of credit itself. A draft letter was discussed and further revisions considered.
Action:The Policy & Governance Committee moved to authorize President Mark Johnson to out send out a letter to the Chief Justice regarding the board’s position on giving MCLE credit to lawyer legislators. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
The attached letter was sent to Chief Justice Carson on June 7, 1999.
EXHIBIT, p. 4-5
D.Access to Justice Committee
1.Recommendations regarding formation of an access to justice network
Mr. Harnden reported that plans to form an access to justice network will be deferred pending the results of the access to justice study. See related minutes item 3.B.1.
2.Proposed Citizens Conference (ABA Justice Initiatives Project)
Mr. Harnden discussed the recommendation to hold separate Citizens and Access to Justice Conferences in 2000 as outlined in the attached exhibit. This event was also discussed by Mr. Rew in his president-elect’s report item 1.B.2.
Action:The Access to Justice Committee moved to hold separate Citizens and Access to Justice Conferences in 2000. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
EXHIBIT, p. 6
3.Proposed RFP for legal needs assessment
Mr. Harnden presented the Access to Justice study contract, proposed study goals and parameters, proposed the formation of a Study Oversight Committee, and proposed negotiating a contract with consultant Michael Dale to conduct the study. Details are included in the attached exhibit.
A lengthy discussion ensued about issues related to serving the legal needs of various levels of low income persons and various study criteria.
Action:The Access to Justice Committee moved to approve the Access to Justice study contract and proposed study goals and parameters, and to authorize the Access to Justice Committee to form a Study Oversight Committee and to negotiate a contract with consultant Michael Dale to conduct the study. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
EXHIBIT, p. 7-10
E.Executive Director Review Committee
1.Proposed process/timeline for 1999 executive director performance review
Ms. Sowle reported on meetings with the Executive Director Review Committee, Karen Garst, and a human resources consultant to design an improved performance review process for the executive director. It is felt that the new process will be more beneficial to the executive director and the board. It will require each member of the committee to interview different segments of the bar such as BOG members, key staff, and the community. The timeline is to have all interviews complete with information to Ms. Sowle by July 1 to develop a report for consideration at the July BOG meeting.
F.Awards Special Committee
1.Recommendations for the Award of Merit and the President’s Awards
Mr. Hytowitz presented recommendations for recipients of the 1999 Award of Merit and the 1999 President’s Awards as shown on the attached exhibit. He commented on the significant increase in nominations this year which he felt was due to an improved awards nomination brochure and the work of the board and staff to encourage bar groups to submit nominations. A question and answer period ensued about various candidates and the awards review and selection process.
Concern was expressed about ways to honor legislators for service to the bar such as the President’s Public Service Award. Mr. Hytowitz explained that the Awards Special Committee felt it was appropriate to focus on public service as a lawyer other than legislative activities. Other groups and county bar associations frequently honor legislators. Mr. Orf felt that it is mixing apples and oranges to put legislators under the President’s Public Service Award. Ms. Sowle commented that when choosing from highly qualified candidates, an award cannot be given to everyone. Mr. Hytowitz indicated that other highly qualified candidates nominated for the Award of Merit were not among those recommended to receive it this year.
Action:The Awards Special Committee moved to approve the recipients for the 1999 Award of Merit and the 1999 President’s Awards as shown on the attached exhibit.
EXHIBIT, p. 11
Action:Mr. Tyner moved, Ms. Rinehart seconded, to amend the main motion by nominating Lane Shetterly for the 1999 President’s Public Service Award. The motion failed (2-12-2); yes Tyner, Rinehart; absent Burrows, Sumner).
Action:The main motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
Mr. Johnson thanked the board for its efforts to encourage so many award nominations this year.
2.Proposed Special Award of Appreciation - BOG Policy 3.300(E)
Mr. Hytowitz presented a recommendation to establish the President’s Award of Appreciation and to approve as its first recipient Linda Clingan, Executive Director of the Campaign for Equal Justice. The Awards Special Committee felt that Ms. Clingan was an example of a person whose outstanding achievements did not match the criteria for the Award of Merit for which she was nominated in 1998 and 1999. The Special Award of Appreciation is to be established as a discretionary award of the president, subject to BOG approval. The new award is not intended to be 'advertised' in the awards nomination brochure, but to be used when appropriate candidates come to light in the traditional awards process or from other sources. The Special Award of Appreciation will be presented at the Annual Awards Luncheon.
The new award was discussed with the following comments: (a) The new award could become a repository for all kinds of other potential awards. Do we need to do this? (b) Establishing the award in BOG Policy defines its criteria, purpose and intent. (c) A special award of this nature will permit a way to not dilute the intent of the Award of Merit and the President’s Awards.
Action:The Awards Special Committee moved to waive the one meeting notice required by Bar Bylaw 4.2(B) in order to take action on proposed revisions to BOG Policy 3.300. The motion was approved by the board (10-4-2); no Hittle, Johnson, Rinehart, Tyner; absent Burrows, Sumner).
Action:The Awards Special Committee moved to approve revised BOG Policy 3.300 to establish the Special Award of Appreciation and to approve Linda Clingan as a recipient of the award in 1999. (Revisions to BOG Policy 3.300, as shown on the agenda exhibit, will be developed further by Mr. Riemer and presented to the board for approval at the July, 1999 board meeting.) The motion was approved by the board (12-2-2); no Rinehart, Tyner; absent Burrows, Sumner).
4.Professional Liability Fund
A.Amendments to PLF Bylaw 8.1 and PLF Policy 2.250 - Incentive Program
Ms. Cohen presented amendments to PLF Bylaw 8.1 and PLF Policy 2.250 concerning incentive programs such as frequent flier miles. The board discussed the amendments.
Action:Ms. Cohen moved, Ms. Rinehart seconded, to approve amendments to PLF Bylaw 8.1 and PLF Policy 2.250 - Incentive Program, subject to the attention of language indicating the value of such compensation to not exceed $500, so as to be consistent with the Federal Volunteer Protection Act. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
5.OSB Committees, Sections, Councils, Divisions and Task Forces
A.Client Security Fund Committee
1.CSF Claim Nos. 98-28 and 98-29 -Loveness v. Belcher
Mr. Scott presented the Client Security Fund Committee recommendation to approve CSF Claim Nos. 98-28 and 98-29 -Loveness v. Belcher and discussed their backgrounds
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Hittle seconded, to approve CSF Claim Nos. 98-28 Loveness v. Belcher. The motion was subsequently withdrawn.
Mr. Hytowitz felt that no attorney/client relationship existed and that it was a loan brokering arrangement. Mr. Scott explained that this claim is recommended under CSF Rule 2.5.2. which relates to the lawyer acting as a fiduciary in a matter related to the lawyer’s practice. Mr. Baldwin questioned whether running funds through a trust account is the only factor that relates the matter to the attorney’s practice or if other factors exist. A lengthy discussion ensued about various facts in both claims. There was consensus to carry both claims over to the July board meeting and invite the Client Security Fund Committee chair and Ms. Stevens to be present.
2.CSF Claim No. 98-46 - Potter v. Kelley
Mr. Scott discussed the committee’s recommendation to approve CSF Claim No. 98-46 - Potter v. Kelley. Mr. Hytowitz felt that the client was working a fraud on her creditors and now expected to be reimbursed for her mistake. He asked what had been done to show that the lawyer is 'judgment proof' and that the judgment cannot be collected. Mr. Johnson explained the CSF Committee has investigated and determined that Phil Kelley is judgment proof. Mr. Riemer indicated that claims collections have improved considerably in recent years and that the bar will be receiving a $35,000 collection soon from an old claim. Mr. Scott praised the efforts of Ms. Stevens to single-handedly create a collection program for the bar.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Baldwin seconded, to approve CSF Claim No. 98-46 - Potter v. Kelley in the amount of $30,074. The motion was approved by the board (13-1-2); no Hytowitz; absent Burrows, Sumner).
3.Amendments to CSF Rules 2.2 and 6.2
Mr. Scott discussed the background of the proposed amendment to CSF Rule 6.2 to increase the single CSF claim cap from $25,000 to $50,000. He felt that financial information should accompany the proposed amendment to provide Client Security Fund budget and income data. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed claim cap. Mr. Rew felt that CSF claims projections would be desirable to assist the board with its analysis. Mr. Riemer suggested carrying over the proposed amendment to the July board meeting in order to gather required financial data. There was consensus to do so.
Mr. Scott presented the proposed amendment to CSF Rules 2.2 regarding dishonest conduct. He suggested to also carry it over to the July BOG meeting to give board members more time to think about it. A discussion ensued about various aspects of the rule. Mr. Scott described the difficult, sometimes gut-wrenching, decisions that have to be made regarding claims presented to the CSF Committee. There was consensus to carry the amendment over to the board’s July meeting.
C.Federal Practice & Procedure Committee
1.Report and recommendations on reorganizing/splitting the Ninth Circuit
Ms. Sowle presented the recommendation of the Federal Practice and Procedure Committee that the board adopt a resolution opposing the proposed reorganization or splitting of the Ninth Circuit.
Action:Ms. Sowle moved, Mr. Hittle seconded, to adopt a resolution opposing the proposed reorganization or splitting of the Ninth Circuit. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
6.Rules and Ethics Opinions
A.Legal Ethics Committee
1.Proposed Formal Ethics Opinion: Audits of insurance defense bills (Opinion Request 98-2R)
Nancy Moriarty, Legal Ethics Committee Chair, presented the proposed formal ethics opinion to address the issues facing an insurance defense lawyer who is asked by the insurance company to submit detailed billing statements to an outside (third-party) audit service. She reviewed the background of the opinion and indicated it has generated great interest from the insurance defense bar and the insurance industry. The conclusion is that client consent is required if confidences and conflicts are to be disclosed. A lively questions and answer period followed.
Action:Ms. Rinehart moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approval Formal Ethics Opinion 1999-157, Audits of insurance defense bills. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
Mr. Johnson mentioned that a Policy & Governance consent agenda had been added: Proposed changes to BOG Policy Chapter 1.
Action:Mr. Harnden moved, Mr. Orf seconded, to approve the following consent agenda items. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2); absent Burrows, Sumner).
A.Reading and approval of April 3, 1999 meeting minutes
1.Appointments to House of Delegates: Out-of-State and Region 4.
2.Appointment to Region 5 House of Delegates.
3.Appointment to Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions Committee.
4.New chair designation - Procedure and Practice Committee.
5.Appointment to the Multnomah County LPRC.
6.Schedule the annual Appointments Committee meeting
7.Appointments to Regions 4, 5 and 6 House of Delegates
8.Appointments to Regions 4 and 5 Disciplinary Board
EXHIBIT, p. 12
C.Policy & Governance Committee
1.Revision to Standard Section Bylaws regarding effective date of terms of
2.Proposed amendment of House of Delegates Rule 10.1
3.Proposed revision of BOG Policy 4.300 - Compensation or Recognition of
4.Proposed changes to BOG Policy Chapter 1 regarding public records law
EXHIBIT, p. 13-24
D.Budget & Finance Committee
1.PLF Rent for 1999
E.Client Security Fund Committee
1.CSF Claim No. 98-19 - Williams v. Hilke
2.CSF Claim No. 99-02 - Fox-Lytle v. Sylvester
3.CSF Claim No. 99-05- Liska v. Dewey
4.CSF Claim No. 99-09 - Moore v. Dewey
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
B.Report of the Executive Director
2.Newsletter - Oregon Uniting Times
C.Client Security Fund Committee
1.CSF Claims Report
10.Good of the Order (Non-action comments, information and notice of need for possible
future board action)
A.Mr. Riemer thanked board members and Karen Garst for making it possible for him to take a sabbatical. He will be on leave from July 7 to November 8. Sylvia Stevens will be Acting General Counsel in his absence and will be assisted by Susan Grabe as Assistant General Counsel.
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))
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.
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.
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