MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
July 23, 1999 - Medford
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 Friday, July 23, 1999 at 11:50 a.m. The open session on Friday was from 1:10 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. and from 3:50 p.m. to 5:50 p.m. (recessed to the Judicial Proceedings agenda from 11:50 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. and recessed to the Executive Session agenda from 3:05 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.). All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of Gordon Davis all day; Joyce Cohen and Sarah Rinehart from 5:10 p.m. to 5:50 p.m.; and John Tyner from 5:30 p.m. to 5:50 p.m. Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; and Sylvia Stevens, Assistant General Counsel. Others present in order of appearance by conference call included Frank Hilton, Bob Oleson and Susan Grabe.
1.Report of Officers
A.Report of the President
Mr. Johnson explained that the order of items on the agenda had been changed to facilitate handling more technical matters first following the report of officers.
1.Meeting with Chief Justice
Mr. Johnson reported on the June 22, 1999 meeting with Chief Justice Carson. Also present were Ms. Garst, Mr. Oleson and Mr. Riemer. Matters discussed included an update on judicial bills and that no new judgeships were funded by the legislature. The Chief Justice agreed to co-sponsor a Low and Moderate Income Legal Services Study.
2.Reports from regional HOD meetings
Mr. Johnson discussed feedback from the first round of regional HOD meetings held in June and July and potential resolutions from delegates. A second round of regional HOD meetings is scheduled in late August to review the final HOD agenda.
3.Senator Gordon Smith letter regarding the Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act
Mr. Johnson discussed Senator Smith’s request for additional information regarding the bar’s opposition to the Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act. Ms. Stevens will forward Senator’s Smith’s to the Federal Procedure & Practice Section for its comments, and will send a letter to Senator Smith that a response is forthcoming.
4.Correspondence from bar-related groups
Mr. Johnson reported that he had received a letter from the Campaign for Equal Justice thanking the BOG for its support. He also commented on a form letter received from the Classroom Law Project (CLP), addressed to former executive director Celene Greene, asking for donations and criticizing the BOG for donating only $20,000 to its program. Mr. Johnson indicated he will reply to CLP executive director Marilyn Cover.
B.Report of the President-Elect
a.Interim committee meeting attendance and preference for Friday or Saturday
Mr. Rew asked board members to consider recent quorum problems at interim board committee meetings. The dates are published one year in advance and he asked board members to hold these dates on their calendars as much as possible. The work done at interim committee meeting streamlines the BOG agenda and time spent at BOG meetings.
BOG members were asked whether they preferred to block out Thursday, Friday or Saturday for interim committee meetings. A show of hands showed a preference for Saturday meetings.
b.1999-2000 committee appointment process and assignment of mentors for new BOG
Mr. Rew reviewed the process for BOG members to indicate their preference for assignments to BOG committees and as contacts to OSB committees, sections and other bar groups. Mentors assigned to new board members to assist them with this process are David Hittle with Mitzi Naucler and Ed Harnden with Charlie Williamson. Preference forms will be send to the board next week.
c.Board member attendance at Client Security Fund Committee, Legal Ethics Committee, UPL Committee, PLF Board, MCLE Board
Mr. Rew explained his desire to assign BOG liaisons that can attend the majority of meetings of the Client Security Fund Committee, Legal Ethics Committee, UPL Committee, PLF Board, and MCLE Board. Better coverage is needed to improve communication and reduce the need to send BOG agenda items back to these groups for further explanation.
2.Tentative topic for November BOG retreat -Development of strategic plan (general and three-year)
Ms. Garst explained it is the intent that strategic planning be the main topic of this year’s BOG retreat and future retreats. All members of the Strategic Planning Committee will be invited to participate in the one-day planning session. In the future it may be possible to involve both incoming and outgoing board members in the retreat if the bar year is changed to January 1.
C.Report of the Executive Director
1.August 10 conference call meeting to approve HOD agenda
Ms. Garst reminded board members of the importance to be available for the special board meeting to approve the HOD agenda on August 10 at noon.
2.Election of 1999-2000 Officers
Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stevens reviewed the 1999-2000 officer election process. Ballots were distributed to the members of the board. Candidates eligible for the office of president-elect were Mr. Harnden, Mr. Scott and Ms. Sowle. The candidates gave brief statements regarding their interest in being elected to the office.
Action:Edwin A. Harnden was elected 1999-2000 President-Elect for. (Ballot count by candidate: Harnden 8 - Baldwin, Burrows, Cohen, Harnden, Hytowitz, Lopez, Rew, Tyner; Scott 1 - Scott; Sowle 6 - Hittle, Johnson, Orf, Rinehart, Sowle, Sumner; absent - Davis).
Action:Mr. Baldwin moved, Ms. Rinehart seconded, to elect Lawrence B. Rew as 1999-2000 President. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
Action:Mr. Hytowitz moved, Ms. Burrows seconded, to elect Richard C. Baldwin and David M. Orf as 1999-2000 Vice Presidents. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
3.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. Hilton)
Mr. Scott asked the board to consider CSF Claims No. 98-28 and No. 98-29, each in the amount of $50,000. The CSF Committee’s recommendation to pay claim No. 98-28 was carried over from the June 5 board meeting and, as requested by the BOG, discussed further by the CSF Committee at its June 12 meeting. Claim No. 98-29 was denied by the committee and was before the BOG on the claimant’s request for board review. The CSF Committee’s recommendation regarding each claim is unchanged. Committee member Frank Hilton was present by conference call and asked Ms. Stevens to comment on the matter. Ms. Stevens reviewed the committee’s thinking on the first of the two loans, that it is eligible for payment not because of any lawyer/client relationship but because in that transaction Mr. Belcher was collecting and disbursing the payments before absconding with the balloon payment. The committee concluded that Mr. Belcher was acting as a fiduciary in a matter related to his practice of law, in part because he contends he is the borrower’s lawyer and that makes the claim eligible for payment based on CSF Rule 2.5.2. Mr. Hilton concurred with Ms. Stevens’ overview of the claim.
Mr. Scott suggested that the real intent of CSF Rule 2.5.2 is that theft from the trust account be ancillary to the claimant’s relationship with the client and that this type of claim was not contemplated when that rule was adopted. Mr. Baldwin agreed with Mr. Scott. A lengthy discussion ensued.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Orf seconded, to deny CSF Claim Nos. 98-28 and 98-29 - Loveness v. Belcher and Loveness Trust v. Belcher. The motion was approved by the board (14-1-1; no Lopez; absent Davis).
2.Amendments to CSF Rules 2.2 and 6.2
Mr. Hilton reviewed the proposed amendment to CSF Rule 6.2 that would increase the reimbursement from any one CSF claim from $50,000 to $100,000 for estates or trusts having more than one beneficiary, provided that no single beneficiary could receive more than $50,000. Mr. Hilton indicated the CSF Committee felt it was responsible to increase limits as a matter of policy. The board discussed the pros and cons of the matter and the possible increase in trust matters with large estates. The board took no action on the committee’s recommendation to amend CSF Rule 6.2.
Mr. Hilton presented the proposed amendment to CSF Rule 2.2 regarding the definition of dishonest conduct by an attorney. The proposed language codifies how the CSF Committee decides claims cases involving attorney fees. Mr. Johnson indicated that his prior concerns about the rule amendment were addressed by Mr. Hilton and the exhibit materials. A question and answer period ensued.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Hittle seconded, to approve the amendment to CSF Rule 2.2 regarding dishonest conduct by an attorney. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
3.Review denial of CSF Claim No. 99-12 - Reinier v. Dewey
Mr. Scott presented the claimant’s request to review the Client Security Fund’s denial of the claim for reimbursement in the amount of $555.00. He indicated this claim relates to the amendment to CSF Rule 2.2 just approved by the board. Mr. Dewey established a retainer amount and an hourly rate, and after performing some work he just quit providing service to Ms. Reinier. Mr. Scott felt it was a valid claim. Ms. Stevens explained that this claim is indicative of the difficulty faced by the CSF Committee in assessing unearned advance payments. The board discussed the matter at length.
Action:Mr. Orf moved, Mr. Hytowitz seconded, to approve CSF Claim No. 99-12 - Reinier v. Dewey in the amount of $550.00 and waive the requirement for a judgment in the matter. The motion was approved by the board (13-2-1; no Hytowitz, Johnson; absent Davis).
4.BOG Committees, Special Committees, Task Forces and Study Groups
A.Executive Director Review Special Committee
1.Executive director performance review report
The board met in executive session to discuss Ms. Garst’s annual performance review.
Action:The Executive Director Review Special Committee moved to accept the 1999 Executive Director performance review for Karen Garst, including a proposed salary increase and to renew Ms. Garst’s employment contract, effective January 1, 2000 for one year. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
B.Policy & Governance Committee
1.Consider change in OSB bar year
This item was carried over to the September board meeting.
C.Budget & Finance Committee
1.2000 Budget Executive Summary
Mr. Rew presented the recommendations of the
Budget & Finance Committee for the year 2000 Executive
Summary Budget as shown on agenda exhibit pages 26-38. The
board discussed the pros and cons of (item No. 5) changing
the bar’s operating reserve from 20% of non-dues revenues
to an annual cap of $500,000 by revising BOG Policy 10.101(B)(1)
as follows: The operating reserve of the General Fund shall
be equal to $500,000
20% of the annual operating
budget for non-dues revenue, but may be permitted
by the BOG in a range of $450,000 to $550,000 17.5%
to 22.5% without increasing or decreasing dues.
The policy was further reworded as shown in the motion below:
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to amend BOG Policy 10.101(B)(1) (Item No. 5) to read as follows, 'The operating reserve of the General Fund shall be $500,000. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1; absent Davis).
Item No. 2 recommended to approve in concept a consumer advocate program and to refer it to the Policy & Governance Committee for implementation. Ms. Garst suggested it would be appropriate for this and other proposed programs to come through the Strategic Planning Committee prior to review by the Policy & Governance Committee, and before being presented to the BOG. This is the direction proposed by the Strategic Planning Committee to define and evaluate programs in order to effectively prioritize and allocate bar resources. It was agreed to consider the consumer advocate program in concept, but to exclude mention of implementation at this time.
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to approve the concept the consumer advocate program (Item No. 2) for consideration by the Strategic Planning Committee and possible inclusion in the 2000 budget. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1; absent Davis).
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to include in the 2000 Budget $20,000 for the Classroom Law Project (Item No. 1), and to deny the request of the Business Law Section for the bar to commit $10,000 for two years to the Oregon Emerging Business Initiative (Item No. 3). The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1; absent Davis).
Budget Item No. 4 was approved under minutes item 4.C.2. shown below.
2.Approve 2000 fee resolution
Mr. Rew presented Item No. 4 in the 2000 Budget proposing that the increase in the member fee be increased from $12 to $25 on inactive members, active emeritus, and active retired, if not paid by the due date. The annual membership fees and Client Security Fund assessments are unchanged from 1999 in the 2000 fee resolution. The only changes refer to payments of fees not made by the due date.
Ms. Stevens suggested that the fees for specific bar programs, such as Client Security Fund and Affirmative Action, be specified in the resolution and discussed related statutory requirements. Mr. Hittle questioned why, at a time when the Affirmative Action Program is being questioned, is its $30 fee being omitted from the fee statement so it appears to have disappeared? How will this be perceived by the members? What is the rationale for taking it out? Ms. Garst explained that when the board voted to exclude the fee assessment details from the fee statement it was with the understanding that the details would be included in the fee resolution (which is sent to every member). The fee statement will include a footnote explaining the various dues and fees which are not itemized. It was proposed to approve the 2000 fee resolution by modifying the fee resolution to provide a total amount in 1A and 1C, and to not list the items for the three separate parts.
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to modify the fee resolution to provide a total amount in 1A and 1C, and to not list the items for the three separate parts (see attached exhibit), to be submitted the 1999 House of Delegates. The motion was approved by the board (8-7-1; no Cohen, Hittle, Johnson, Orf, Rinehart, Sowle, Tyner; absent Davis).
Action:The Budget & Finance Committee moved to approve increasing the member late fee from $12 to $25 on inactive members, active emeritus, and active retired in the 2000 Budget; and to submit the 2000 Fee Resolution to the 1999 House of Delegates. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1; absent Davis).
EXHIBIT, p. 1-2
D.Public Affairs Committee
1.Session overview and update
a.Judicial related measures
Mr. Oleson participated by speaker phone and indicated that the legislative session was close to adjourning. Mr. Hittle reported that HJR 2 had passed the legislature. The referendum, which passed both houses, is a response to the Supreme Court’s June 15 cap on damages in personal injury cases. It refers to the voters to allow the legislature to set a cap on damages.
Mr. Hittle reviewed HB2998 – the MCLE bill. Part one requires attorneys to complete one hour of training every three years on their child abuse reporting obligation under ORS 419.010. The second part requires the Board of Governors to establish minimum continuing legal education requirements for all active members of the Oregon State Bar subject to review by the Oregon Supreme Court. The implications of this for the BOG and the MCLE Board were discussed in that it makes MCLE a statutory requirement as opposed to a Supreme Court rule.
Mr. Oleson recapped the status of other judicial items including SB 82 which may move forward at conclusion of the legislative session. End of session increases in the judicial budget and benefits are unlikely. The interim judiciary committee will be studying SJR7 and a task force may be formed. Mr. Oleson also reviewed the status of other matters including the apparent failure of the covenant marriage bill.
Mr. Hittle indicated he would postpone the session wrap up to the September board meeting. He and the board gave Bob Oleson, Susan Grabe and other Public Affairs staff a round of applause for outstanding work during the legislative session.
Mr. Hittle reviewed the difficulties encountered with PLF involvement in House Bill 2226 regarding child abuse and the subsequent article published by Steve Duin. The series of events which led up to the problems was discussed as well as efforts at damage control. Ways to avoid similar problems in the future were considered such as pre-session agreements about the scope of positions to be taken by the PLF. He felt that the weekly Public Affairs Committee conferences were an effective communication tool, and that minutes needed to be taken at these sessions even when no quorum is present. Concern was expressed about what resolutions may be presented by the HOD in this regard. Mr. Hittle suggested getting together with the principals involved to discuss ideas for resolution in the future.
E.Strategic Planning Committee
1.Recommendations to Oregon ABA delegates regarding Multidisciplinary
Practice (MDP) resolution
Mr. Johnson explained that the board is being asked to recommend to the Oregon ABA delegates to urge that more study be done on the Multidisciplinary Practice (MDP) resolution at the 1999 ABA Annual House of Delegates meeting. The board discussed the matter and its role to make recommendations to the Oregon ABA delegates. There was consensus to support the Florida Bar resolution which 'urges that the American Bar Association make no change, addition or amendment to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct unless and until extensive and well-reasoned analysis demonstrates that such change will further the public interest without sacrificing or compromising lawyer independence and the legal profession’s tradition of loyalty to clients.'
Action:Mr. Hytowitz moved, Ms. Burrows seconded, to request that the Oregon State Bar’s ABA delegates support at the 1999 ABA Annual House of Delegates meeting the Florida Bar resolution (stated above) that urges more study be done on the Multidisciplinary Practice (MDP) resolution. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
2.Communications strategy regarding MDP
This items was carried over to the September board meeting.
F.Access to Justice Committee
1.Status report of contract negotiations to conduct legal needs study
Mr. Harnden reported that an agreement had been prepared, but is being amended to provide for interim payments rather than a lump sum at the conclusion.
2.Status of fund raising for minority experience study
Mr. Harnden indicated that $10,000 would be raised outside of bar funds for the minority experience study and that $4,500 had been received to date.
G.Public Member Special Committee
1.Reappointment of public member Mary McCauley Burrows to 1999-2003 term
Mr. Orf recommended the reappointment of public member Mary McCauley Burrows to a four-year term. Ms. Burrows filled the unexpired term of Liliana Olberding in 1998 with the understanding she would be reappointed to a full term.
Action:The Public Member Selection Special Committee moved to appoint Mary McCauley Burrows as 1999-2003 public member to the Board of Governors. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
A.House of Delegates
1.Preliminary 1999 HOD agenda
Mr. Johnson asked the board to review preliminary 1999 HOD agenda items. The history of amendments to DR 5-106, regarding lawyers as mediators, was discussed. Changes to the DR have involved Mr. Riemer, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Fishleder of the PLF, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section and the Legal Ethics Committee. Revisions proposed by both groups were discussed at length.
Action:Ms. Cohen moved, Ms. Burrows seconded, to approve amendments to DR 5-106 (shown in the attached exhibit). A friendly amendment was accepted to remove the words 'or proceeding' from DR 5-106 (D). The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
EXHIBIT, p. 3
Mr. Harnden proposed the attached BOG resolution regarding funding for legal services be considered for the 1999 House of Delegates agenda.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Tyner seconded, to approve the attached Resolution in Support of Adequate Funding for Legal Services for Low-Income Oregonians to be submitted to the 1999 House of Delegates. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
EXHIBIT, p. 4
a.Consider CLE on MDP following HOD meeting
Ms. Garst indicated that the proposed CLE had been preempted by another CLE scheduled prior to the September 18, 1999 HOD meeting.
2.1999 HOD agenda - BOG responsibilities
Mr. Johnson and Ms. Garst volunteered to review the 1999 HOD agenda to make recommendations to the board regarding topics and presenters at the August 10 special board meeting.
3.Plans for second round of regional HOD meetings
Mr. Johnson reported that the attached meeting notice has been distributed for HOD members to review the 1999 HOD agenda in late August.
EXHIBIT, p. 5
6.Professional Liability Fund
A.New PLF Directors
See Consent Agenda item 7.B. regarding a change to PLF director appointments.
B.Fax poll results on PLF coverage limits
Ms. Cohen reported on the positive results of the PLF fax poll shown on agenda exhibit pages 70-83.
Action:Ms. Sowle moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approve the following consent items excluding 7.D.3 (removed for separate consideration). The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
A.Reading and approval of June 5, 1999 meeting minutes
Ms. Sowle reported that the Appointments Committee made a change to one of the PLF Board’s recommended new directors by replacing Albert J. Bannon with Robert G. Thuemmel.
1.1999-2000 Committee Appointments
2.Appointment to Council on Court Procedures
3.Appointment to Commission on Judicial Fitness & Disability
4.Appointments to MCLE Board
5.Appointments to PLF Board
6.Appointments to SPRB
7.Appointments to Clackamas/Linn/Marion County LPRC
9.Appointments to Bar Counsel Panel
10.Appointment to Oregon Law Commission
11.Appointment to Chief Justice’s Criminal Law Advisory Committee
12.Appointment of Public Members to the House of Delegates
13.Public Members for other committees
EXHIBIT, p. 6-13
C.Awards Special Committee
1.Proposed revisions to BOG Policy 3.300(E), Special Award of Appreciation
D.Client Security Fund Committee
1.CSF Claim No. 99-01 - Boone/Fernandez v. Wilkes
2.CSF Claim No. 99-07 - Rohr v. McNamara
3.CSF Claim No. 99-10 - Dulis v. Dewey
Mr. Scott requested to remove this item from the consent agenda for separate consideration. He proposed to amend the CSF Committee’s recommendations to delete the proposal to issue two checks to the 'joint payees.' Mr. Scott found no evidence in the file to explain why a third party (mother and grandmother) wrote the check for Dewey (a minor at the time). He felt it is unprecedented for the committee to decide that the person who paid in the money should be a joint payee on the check. Ms. Stevens indicated that the CSF Committee had the same concerns about whether the funds were a loan or a gift to the client and that this way Dulis and his family can settle it between themselves.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Hittle seconded, to approve CSF Claim No. 99-10 - Dulis v. Dewey with the disbursement being paid to the claimant and only to the claimant. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
E.Policy & Governance Committee
1.Approve remaining committee charges
2.Performance measurement goal statements for MCLE and Legal Services Program
F.Strategic Planning Committee
1.Proposed value statements
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 Executive Director
B.Client Security Fund Committee
1.CSF Claims Report
9.Good of the Order (Non-action comments, information and notice of need for possible future board action)
No items were discussed.
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
July 23, 1999 - Medford
Closed Session Minutes
The meeting was called to order by President Johnson on Friday, July 23, 1999 at 11:50 a.m. All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of Gordon Davis. Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; and Sylvia Stevens, Assistant General Counsel.
Reinstatements - Judicial Proceedings
1.Michael Bruce - #82206
Action:The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Michael Bruce pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Bruce’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
2.Christopher S. Byrne - #93517
Action:The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Christopher S. Byrne pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Byrne’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
3.John C. Carraway - #96172
Action:The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating John C. Carraway pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Carraway’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
4.Michael G. Monnolly - #97146
Action:The board approved by consent reinstating Michael G. Monnolly pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
1.James S. Drew - #74080
Mr. Hittle discussed the reinstatement request of James S. Drew and recommended that the board defer action until Mr. Drew undergoes a comprehensive psychological evaluation.
Action:Mr. Hittle moved, Ms. Burrows seconded, to defer action on the reinstatement application of James S. Drew, until Mr. Drew undergoes a comprehensive psychological evaluation. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-2; absent Davis, Rew).
2.Michael P. Levi - #82319
Mr. Harnden reviewed the reinstatement request of Michael P. Levi. It was subject to the one meeting notice requirement in BOG Policy 2.200 and was carried over to the September board meeting.
Litigation - Executive Session
(ORS 192.660(1)(f) - to consider exempt records) and
(ORS 192.660(1)(h) - to consult with counsel)
A.Unlawful Practice of Law (UPL)
1.UPL No. 97-7 - John Salter
Mr. Scott presented the request of the UPL Committee to authorize an injunctive lawsuit against John Salter. He recommended to decline authorizing civil litigation in the matter because of the amount of time that has elapsed since the matter began (two years). He believed the bar would be vulnerable to a Rule 21 motion on statute of limitation grounds.
Action:Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Sumner seconded, to decline authorizing an injunctive lawsuit of UPL No. 97-7 - John Salter. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1-1; absent Davis; abstaining Lopez).
Mr. Scott was asked to discuss the BOG’s recommendations with the UPL Committee and recommend that it watch related statutes more closely in the future.
B.Exempt Records/Advice of Counsel
1.Obtaining a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service re: OSB’s status as a government entity
Ms. Stevens reviewed Tom Tongue’s letter of July 14, 1999 and his recommendations about whether to request a private letter ruling from the IRS related to the Oregon State Bar’s status as a governmental entity. Ms. Garst updated the board on recent discussions with PERS about ways to resolve the matter. A discussion ensued.
Action:Mr. Rew moved, Mr. Sumner seconded, to present the BOG’s position to the PERS Board in a memorandum marshaling all of the arguments about the bar’s governmental status before seeking a private letter ruling with the IRS. The motion was approved by the board (14-0-1-1; absent Davis; abstaining Lopez).
2.Update re: Garst v. State of Oregon (Oregon Judicial Counsel initiative) petition for attorney fees
Ms. Stevens reported that the State accepted our offer to forego our attorney fee claim if the State doesn’t appeal.
3.Request from defendant in OSB v. Robin Smith for OSB to forgive its cost bill judgment
Ms. Stevens reviewed the history of the Robin Smith matter and Ms. Smith’s request that the OSB forgive (satisfy) its judgment against her for costs on appeal in the amount of $16,296.25. Ms. Stevens indicated that Mr. Sapiro felt the board should get Allen Reel’s input since he invested considerable time litigating this matter for the bar. The board discussed the pros and cons of the matter.
Action:Mr. Hytowitz moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to deny Robin Smith’s request to forgive (satisfy) its judgment against her for costs on appeal in the amount of $16,296.25, and to retain the bar’s full right to pursue the judgment as and when deemed appropriate, and to renew the judgment at the end of its ten year period. The motion was approved by the board (15-0-1; absent Davis).
C.Disciplinary Counsel’s Status Report
Mr. Johnson referred to Mr. Sapiro’s report and asked the board if it had any questions. None were asked.
A status report of the following matters was included on the agenda.
1.Erwin v. OSB (Clackamas County Circuit Court).
2.Arnold v. Marandas, et al. (US District Court for Dist. of Oregon Case No. 98-706-AS
3.Kluge v. OSB (Marion County Circuit Court)
4.Eardley v. Garst et al
5.Parker v. Kitzhaber, et al