MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
November 13, 1999 - Tumalo
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 Rew on Saturday, November 13, 1999 at 10:30 a.m. The open session on Saturday was from 10:30 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. and from 12:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (recessed to the Judicial Proceedings agenda from 11:10 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. and recessed to the Executive Session agenda from 11:45 p.m. to 12:10 p.m.). All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of David Hytowitz, Agnes Sowle, Jim Sumner and Charles Williamson; and Ms. Cohen from 2:50 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; George Riemer, General Counsel; and Sylvia Stevens, Assistant General Counsel. Others present in order of appearance were Tom Peachey and Lynn Nagasako.
1. Report of Officers
A. Report of the President
1. Welcome to new BOG members
Mr. Rew welcomed Ms. Naucler to the Board of Governors. Mr. Williamson was unable to attend due to his daughter's wedding being on the same day.
2. Meeting with Chief Justice Carson
Mr. Rew discussed highlights of the meeting with Chief Justice Carson on October 11 which he attended with Ms. Garst and Ms. Grabe. He mentioned that $5,000 had been received from the Judicial Department for the Legal Access study, and described funding problems related to the Court Facilitator Bill (SB 82) recently signed by Governor Kitzhaber.
3. Report on Bar Leadership Conference - October 29
Ms. Garst reported on the success of the new format for the Bar Leadership Conference which featured a special ethics CLE entitled Who Will Practice Law in the Next Century? She indicated that next year more time will be scheduled for section breakout meetings.
4. Upcoming elections - BOG, ABA and HOD
Mr. Rew reported that one person each filed in Regions 1, 3 and 5 - resulting in uncontested elections for those BOG positions in 2000. The deadline for OSB HOD and ABA HOD positions is March 17, 2000.
5. Western States Bar Conference - March 1-4
Mr. Rew encouraged interested board members to make reservations to attend the Western State Bar Conference scheduled March 1-4, 2000 in Maui.
B. Report of the Executive Director
1. Special BOG meeting scheduled August 15, 2000
Ms. Garst reported that the House of Delegates agenda would be approved by the board at a special conference call meeting scheduled at noon on August 15, 2000. BOG members were encouraged to calendar the new meeting date.
2. OSB database conversion and Y2K readiness
Ms. Garst reported that conversion of the bar’s Universe database is complete and all systems are Y2K compliant. Discussions with outside service providers and utilities have resulted in assurances that the OSB Center will have uninterrupted service transitioning into the year 2000.
3. Update on Affirmative Action Committee (AAC)
Mr. Riemer reported on his attendance at the Affirmative Committee meeting on November 12. The AAC discussed its role in oversight of the Affirmative Action Program, concerns with the committee's charge, and budget matters. The selection methodology for funded components of the program (such as scholarships) will be addressed at a future meeting. The committee is helping to develop goals and measurements for the program. Mr. Riemer praised the work of chair Dave Bartz.
Ms. Garst commented that the Policy & Governance Committee will review the wording for all program advisory committee charges. Mr. Lopez indicated he and Mr. Rew would meet with Mr. Bartz prior to the January board meeting to address ongoing issues.
2. OSB Committees, Sections, Councils, Divisions and Task Forces
A. Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claim No. 99-15, Jacobsen v. Miller
Mr. Scott asked Ms. Stevens to review the Client Security Fund Committee's recommendation to deny the Jacobsen v. Miller claim. The CSF Committee had discussed the matter at great length and also talked to Jacobsen who denied he had a personal relationship with Miller. The CSF Committee concluded there was no client/attorney relationship at the time Miller loaned funds to Jacobsen. More importantly, the committee concluded there was no evidence that the loss was caused by Miller’s dishonesty. Ms. Stevens commented on the complexity of the relationship in this matter. Mr. Scott concurred with the recommendation to deny the claim.
Action: Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to deny CSF Claim No. 99-15, Jacobsen v. Miller. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
3. BOG Committees, Special Committees, Task Forces and Study Groups
A. Policy & Governance Committee
1. Proposed revision to BOG Policy 9.400 - Legal Ethics Inquiries
Mr. Baldwin reviewed the recommendation to adopt the attached amendments to BOG Policy 9.400, Legal Ethics Inquiries and Opinions, to include rewording of 9.400(C) distributed to the board as a handout.
Action: Mr. Baldwin moved, Mr. Scott seconded, to approve amendments to BOG Policy 9.400, Legal Ethics Inquiries and Opinions, to include rewording shown in the attached exhibit. The motion was approved by the board (11-0-5; absent Harnden, Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
EXHIBIT, p. 1-2
2. Proposed modification of the Supreme Court order regarding MCLE
Mr. Baldwin presented the MCLE Rule changes for recommendation to the Supreme Court to facilitate the transition of the Minimum Continuing Legal Education responsibility from the MCLE Board to the BOG. The revised rules include an MCLE program advisory committee, new rule 5.2(f) outlining MCLE credit for legislative service, and also include the credit for child abuse reporting training that will be required after July 1, 2000.
Mr. Riemer asked the board to consider that administering MCLE is a function that can be handled by staff and that a committee is not needed. Mr. Baldwin felt the transition should be facilitated by the MCLE Committee with the committee sunsetting in one year unless there is evidence of a continuing need. Mr. Rew anticipates Supreme Court approval of the MCLE Rules. A new charge for the MCLE Committee will be approved at the next BOG meeting. Wording changes were discussed and are reflected in the attached exhibit.
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to recommend to the Supreme Court the attached MCLE Rule amendments and to establish an MCLE Committee to be sunsetted in one year. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
EXHIBIT, p. 3-15
3. Proposal to create a study group regarding attorney mediators and DR 5-106
Mr. Baldwin presented the Policy & Governance Committee's recommendation to create a study group composed of bar members in the various mediation 'communities' to review DR 5-106 regarding attorney mediators and recommend a proposal to the BOG for presentation at the 2000 House of Delegates meeting. Members being recommended by the Appointments Committee include Kristena LaMar, Joseph Charter, Mary Jane Shepard, Susan Leeson, Elaine Hallmark, Lynn Cox and Michael Greene. The study group chair will be appointed at the January board meeting. Charles Williamson will be the BOG contact and Ms. Stevens the staff liaison. No funding will be needed for the group.
Action: The Policy & Governance Committee moved to form the Attorney Mediation Study Group, approve its charge (attached to the agenda), and to report to the board by May 15, 2000. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
B. Budget & Finance Committee
1. 2000 OSB Budget
Mr. Scott presented the 2000 OSB budget and referred to the default agenda item about implementation of the revised investment policy. He described the budget as routine and non-controversial. Past annual meetings have resulted in a deficit and the 1999 biennial meeting in Seaside was no exception with a $50,000 loss. (The 2000 HOD approved a study group to consider reviving the annual meeting and ways to improve its financial position. See minutes item 6.B.9. regarding appointments to the study group.) Mr. Scott indicated that the reserve cap will make the budget more workable. Ms. Garst discussed potential impacts of losing PLF rent in the future and a projected revenue decline in CLE programs and publications.
Action: The Budget & Finance Committee moved to approve the 2000 OSB Budget. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
2. Corporate resolution for mutual fund accounts
Mr. Scott recommended to approve the corporate resolution for the executive director or the chief financial officer to act on the bar's behalf for the purchase, sale, exchange, or transfer of any securities held in mutual fund accounts owned by the bar. The board discussed the proposal.
Action: Mr. Scott moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approve the attached corporate resolution to act in behalf of the bar for the purchase, sale, exchange, or transfer of bar funds in equity mutual fund accounts. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
EXHIBIT, p. 16-17
C. Public Affairs Committee
1. Report on October 22 planning session
Mr. Harnden discussed interim legislative issues and the SJR7 work session. Efforts are underway to determine the legislative agenda and potential impacts on legislation related to three priorities - judges, access to justice and indigent defense. He indicated that the BOG will receive more detailed information addressing these priorities. Mr. Harnden encouraged board members to participate actively in the legislative process in the upcoming year.
2. Update on November 3 work session to develop language for new SJR 7
Mr. Orf highlighted the work group on judicial selection meeting held in Salem on November 3. He discussed a legislative proposal presented by Bill Taylor that would change the current process to include input and participation by various entities including the BOG and the legislature. At that meeting Mr. Orf addressed the bar’s process to provide high quality judicial candidates for the Governor's consideration and the desire of the OSB to continue to participate in the process. The perceived problem with the selection process is that there is not enough public input and the legislature would like to have more involvement. There will be more drafts of the proposed legislation. Mr. Orf felt that the issue will not go away and it is likely the legislature will put a measure on the ballot with the intent to remove the bar from the judicial selection process. Ways to work with the process were discussed.
D. Access to Justice Committee
1. Update on legal needs assessment
Mr. Harnden indicated that the legal needs assessment update will be carried over to the January board meeting. Development of the survey questionnaire is not complete and efforts are being made to clearly focus on the legal needs and ways to obtain meaningful feedback. The survey questionnaire uses the ABA study as its basis. It should be final by mid-January.
Mr. Baldwin reported that the Judicial Department and Governor's Office have both been asked to donate $5,000 to help fund the study and that $5,000 was recently received from the Judicial Department. If more funds are not forthcoming, the Campaign for Equal Justice may be asked for a contribution.
E. BOG/PLF Facility Study Group
1. Formation of study group - members and charge
Mr. Rew briefly discussed information about the study group’s charge and its members.
2. Status report on the facility study
Mr. Rew reviewed the recommendations of the OSB/PLF Facilities Study Group that bar staff remain in the OSB Center building and that PLF staff would move to new office space. Mr. Peachey was present and spoke to the importance of PLF's new office space being in close proximity to the OSB Center. Options being considered by PLF include building or leasing space. Real estate is at a premium on Kruse Way and costs are more reasonable in the Tigard triangle. Ms. Garst suggested that a lease versus buy option is being considered by the study group to avoid the hidden costs of construction, maintenance and facility management.
F. Appellate Selection Special Committee
1. Proposed response to Appellate Practice Section request
Mr. Orf reported that an Appellate Practice Section sub-committee is currently considering ways to participate in the BOG’s appellate selection process. A report will be submitted to the board at a future meeting.
2. Recommendation to expand charge of Appellate Selection Special Committee
Mr. Orf reviewed the proposed expansion of the Appellate Selection Special Committee charge as shown on agenda exhibit page 73. The change includes renaming the committee to the Judicial Selection Special Committee. He indicated these changes are in alignment with the direction of the legislature and plans for the judicial appointment process over the next year or two.
Action: The Appellate Selection Special Committee moved to change its name to the Judicial Selection Special Committee and approve its expanded charge shown on agenda exhibit page 73. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
G. Appointments Committee
1. Letter to the OLF Board confirming appointment
Mr. Rew discussed the proposed letter to the Oregon Law Foundation confirming Jeff Carter's appointment to the OLF board of directors instead of Toby Graff, who was recommended by the OLF Board. Background information about the matter is contained in agenda exhibit pages 75-81.
Lynn Nagasako, OLF Board Chair, participated by conference call. She described the appointment incident as unfortunate and explained that the OLF Board values its relationship with the BOG. On November 11 she and Mr. Overs of the OLF Board had a conference call with Jeff Carter to ask him to resign his appointment to the OLF Board. Mr. Carter declined to do so. The OLF feels the BOG's action in making the appointment was inappropriate for the following reasons: (a) The OLF Articles authorize the OLF Board to make nominations and, if the BOG does not approve OLF’s nominee, the BOG has the obligation to obtain another nomination from the OLF Board. (b) There is a potential liability issue in the BOG's action that needs to be addressed. Expectations from the appointment process in the past was that the BOG would have no problem with OLF's recommendations. Ms. Nagasako suggested that the BOG and OLF should resolve this issue together.
The following comments and questions from board members were responded to by Ms. Nagasako: (a) The articles of incorporation make it clear that the slate serves as a recommendation and that the BOG is responsible for making OLF Board appointments. Response: This was a bifurcation similar to the U.S. Supreme Court model (the BOG cannot both nominate and approve an appointment). (b) Mr. Carter does not have a conflict of interest as he is not an employee or officer of an organization funded by OLF. Response: This is a separate issue and the OLF Board is concerned about the basic issue of authority. (c) Does the OLF Board feel that Mr. Carter cannot do the job? Response: No. The concern is that he has not been properly appointed.
Ms. Nagasko thanked the board for discussing the matter with her and she hoped it understood why the OLF Board was taken aback by this apparent aberration in the OLF director appointment process. The conference call portion of the meeting was concluded at this point.
The board discussed resolution of the appointment matter with OLF. Mr. Harnden offered, and the board agreed by consensus, to amend the draft letter of response shown on agenda exhibit page 77 to reflect the desire of the BOG for the OLF Board to move forward with the important substantive work of the OLF.
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Mr. Baldwin seconded, to send a letter to the OLF Board in response to its concerns about BOG appointment of directors to the OLF Board confirming that the BOG had selected Mr. Carter to serve on the OLF Board. The motion was approved by the board (11-0-5; absent Cohen, Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
4. Professional Liability Fund
A. Response to member concern regarding PLF’s handling of the Pearce/Woodfield matter
Tom Peachey, PLF Board Chair, appeared to discuss the the judgment/asset acquisition strategy used in the July, 1995 PLF claim. Mr. Peachey explained that when the claim strategy came to the attention of the PLF Board of Directors (BOD) in 1996, it resulted in immediate action to address the problems, analyze how the staff was handling it and review other claims strategies. The tactics used in this case were very unusual. If they been reviewed by the BOD, they would have not been used. The matter was not reviewed by the PLF Board but went directly to the Excess Committee. The BOD conducted an internal audit in executive session. Significant changes were recommended to eliminate the Excess Committee, for the BOD to review strategies before pursuing a claim, and to adopt a policy that clearly prohibits the undisclosed purchase of a claim judgment. Mr. Peachey discussed PLF staff involvement and policies that were enacted to resolve problems with subsequent claims. He expressed pride in the overall track record of the PLF and felt that the BOG and PLF had a difficult task to maintain balance in a bar sponsored insurance program.
The board had a lengthy discussion about the following items: (1) The process for hiring outside counsel on claims and oversight of attorneys on the panel. (2) Letters and calls received from members. (3) The secret nature of the strategy resulted because judgments are not typically purchased in the name of insurance companies. (4) The BOD's commitment to incorporating OSB values, establishing good policy, and using the 'smell test' to assess and avoid inappropriate claims strategies which will not unreasonably restrain an extremely adequate defense of a client. (4) The PLF is expected to inform the BOG about matters that may be brought to the attention of the public. (5) BOD members are actively involved in case strategy to monitor progress and to ensure integrity and fairness. (6) Should this matter become more volatile, communication with the BOG is critical to address public and member perceptions. (6) If an attorney's career is on the line, the PLF feels it should do everything possible to defend the claim while aligning with the values of the bar.
There was concurrence to approve the attached statement to OSB members explaining the PLF's past use of the 'judgment/asset acquisition strategy,' including the role and responsibilities of the BOG in setting policy for the entire organization.
EXHIBIT, p. 18-19
B. Approval of 2000 PLF Budget
Ms. Cohen discussed highlights of the 2000 PLF budget and recommended its approval.
Action: Ms. Cohen moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to approve the 2000 PLF budget. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
C. PLF Bylaw 5.3 - Board Action Without Meeting
Mr. Riemer mentioned concerns about a possible conflict with the public meetings law in regard to proposed new PLF Bylaw 5.3. The matter was carried over to the January board meeting.
5. Appearances/Special Issues
A Report on public education forums on Ballot Measure 69-75
Ms. Garst described forums held in five locations to inform the public about the impact of constitutional amendments proposed by Ballot Measure 69-75. They ranged from public forums to in-depth discussions on public affairs cable and radio programs in Portland, Bend, Medford, Pendleton and Washington County. Arrangements in Eugene were cancelled for lack of attendance. Kudos were received from both proponents and opponents of the measures. Communications staff scrambled and did an outstanding job in a short timeframe, while setting aside other priorities. Expenses were less than $2,000 for the forums approved by the 1999 House of Delegates. Mr. Lopez also praised efforts by the Public Affairs staff to arrange the forum in held Washington County. The BOG thanked the Communications staff for the excellent job done in putting the forums together, and that the board supports that partcipation.
B. Member concern about bar staff in Ethics CLE
Ms. Stevens asked the board to consider the propriety of bar counsel appearing in CLE ethics programs and to convey its position to the inquiring member. She reviewed the background of the matter contained in agenda exhibit pages 111-119. The board discussed the matter and felt that staff is doing its job by participating in ethics CLE courses.
Action: Mr. Harnden moved, Ms. Cohen seconded, to convey to Charles N. Isaak that bar staff is doing its job by participating in ethics CLEs. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
A response will be sent to Mr. Isaak about the board’s action in this matter.
C. Flaherty SUA review
Ms. Rinehart reviewed Tom Flaherty's request for the board to review the PLF's refusal to grant him relief from a special underwriting assessment. Ms. Rinehart, Mr. Lopez and Ms. Burrows studied the matter and recommended the BOG deny the request.
Action: Ms. Rinehart moved, Ms. Cohen seconded, to deny relief from SUA in regard to the Tydeman v. Flaherty PLF claim. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
EXHIBIT, p. 20-21
6. Consent Agenda
Action: Mr. Tyner moved, Ms. Burrows seconded, to approve the following consent items. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
A. Reading and approval of September 15-16, 1999
B. Appointments Committee
1. Appointment of Public Member to Unlawful Practice of Law Committee
2. Appointments to Lawyer Referral and Modest Means Committee
3. Recommendations to Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference
4. Appointment of Non-Lawyer Members to the Fee Arbitration Panels
5. Possible Appointment to the CLE Committee
6. Appointment to the Quality of Life Committee
7. Appointment of two Ex-Officio Members to the Federal Practice and Procedure Committee.
8. Appointment to Multnomah County LPRC.
9. Recommendations for appointment to HOD Annual Meeting Study Group
10. Appointment to Legal Ethics Committee
11. Appointment of PLF Director, Position
12. Appointment to Uniform Civil Jury Instructions Committee
13. Appointments to Attorney Mediation Study Group
14. Appointment of additional members to Legal Heritage Interest Group
15. Appointment to SPRB
EXHIBIT, p. 22-23
C. Policy & Governance Committee
1. Recommendations for change in bar year
2. Proposed amendment to BOG Policy 10.302 - Military/Peace Corps/Vista Waivers
D. Budget & Finance Committee
1. Ratification of vote for 2000 membership fee due date
2. Approval of corporate resolution to lease new telephone system with GTE
E Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claim No. 99-20 - Wood v. McNamara
2. CSF Claim No. 99-21 - Yarbrough v. Dewey
3. CSF Claim No. 99-06 - Boyer v. Wilkes
4. CSF Claim No. 98-42 - Kuderer v. Wilkes
5. CSF Claim No. 98-48 - Kitzke v. Little
6. CSF Claim No. 99-03 - Harrison v. Little
7. CSF Claim No. 99-25 - McNew v. Gloyn
8. CSF Claim No. 99-30 - Holliday v. Gloyn
9. CSF Claim No. 99-24 - Warren v. Miller
10. CSF Claim No. 98-12 - Day v. Kelley
7. Default Information Agenda
Mr. Rew 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
1. Operations Report
2. MDP article - 'Envisioning a Big 5 Firm'
B. Budget & Finance Committee
1. Implementation of revised investment policy
C. Strategic Planning
1. Communications strategy regarding MDP
D. Client Security Fund Committee
1. CSF Claims Report
E. National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct & Professionalism
F. House of Delegates
1. 1996-1999 HOD meeting attendance trends
2. Summary of 1999 HOD Meeting Action
8. Good of the Order (Non-action comments, information and notice of need for possible future board action)
A. Mr. Harnden encouraged BOG members to assist with the goal of 100% by all bar leaders to the Campaign for Equal Justice contribution.
B. Mr. Rew thanked Mr. Davis for his outstanding work as chair of the Strategic Planning Committee and for facilitating the board's strategic planning session on November 12.
Board of Governors Meeting
November 13, 1999
Closed Session Minutes
The meeting was called to order by President Rew on Saturday, November 13, 1999 at 11:10 a.m. All members of the Board of Governors were present with the exception of David Hytowitz, Agnes Sowle, Jim Sumner and Charles Williamson. Staff present were Karen Garst, Executive Director; Sandy Hise, Executive Assistant; George Riemer, General Counsel; Jeff Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel; and Sylvia Stevens, Assistant General Counsel.
Reinstatements - Judicial Proceedings (ORS 192.690(1))
A. Consent Agenda
1. James N. Baker - #72015
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Baker pursuant to BR 8.2.
2. Kerry E. Barnett - #87404
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Mr. Barnett pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report, effective January 1, 2000.
3. Douglas E. Beloof - #82028
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Mr. Beloof pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Mr. Beloof’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
4. Tanya M. Gross - #91294
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Ms. Gross pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report and payment of 2000 active bar dues, effective January 1, 2000.
5. Judith Ann Johansen - #83150
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Ms. Johansen pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report and payment of 2000 active bar dues, effective January 1, 2000.
6. Sue-Del McCulloch - #95094
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Ms. McCulloch pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Ms. McCulloch’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
7. Patricia K. Nightingale - #85293
Action: The board approved by consent temporarily reinstating Ms. Nightingale pursuant to BR 8.7, and further approved Ms. Nightingale’s unconditional reinstatement under BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report.
8. Elizabeth Ann Stevenson - #93434
Action: The board approved by consent reinstating Ms. Stevenson pursuant to BR 8.2 upon receipt of a favorable criminal records report and payment of 2000 active bar dues, effective January 1, 2000.
B. Further Agenda
1. John H. Dossett - #91253
Mr. Lopez reviewed the reinstatement request of John Hayden Dossett.
Action: Mr. Lopez moved, Mr. Harnden seconded, to recommend Mr. Dossett’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court upon payment of 2000 active bar dues, effective January 1, 2000. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
2. Anna Dunlap - #91168
Mr. Baldwin presented Ms. Dunlap’s reinstatement request.
Action: Mr. Baldwin moved, Mr. Scott seconded, to recommend Ms. Dunlap’s reinstatement to the Supreme Court upon receiving proof that Ms. Dunlap has obtained 15 CLE credits within the past 12 months. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
3. Karen Dianne Lee - #92080
Ms. Rinchart reviewed Ms. Lee’s reinstatement application to satisfy the one meeting notice requirement set forth in BOG Policy 2.200.
4. Michael P. Levi - #82319
Mr. Harnden reviewed additional information gathered since the board considered Mr. Levi’s reinstatement request at its September, 1999 meeting. Ms. Rinehart indicated she would recuse herself from any action on the matter. A lengthy discussion ensued about the Mr. Levi’s background, his fitness to practice law, and public protection concerns.
The conditions agreed upon for Mr. Levi’s reinstatement are as follows: (1) Treatment with a medical expert to determine the need for, and develop an appropriate course of, ongoing treatment for alcohol abuse. (2) Mandatory compliance with any and all treatment components recommended by the medical expert. (3) Abstinence from the use of alcohol and nonprescription medications. (4) Continued attendance at OAAP meetings. (5) Monitoring of Mr. Levi’s law practice by SLAC or a lawyer approved by Disciplinary Counsel. (6) Quarterly reports to Disciplinary Counsel by Mr. Levi and those individuals monitoring his alcohol treatment and law practice. (7) A three year duration to the probation.
Action: Mr. Orf moved, Mr. Davis seconded, to recommend Mr. Levi’s conditional reinstatement to the Supreme Court, subject to the conditions stated above. The motion was approved by the board (9-2-4-1; no Baldwin, Naucler; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson; abstaining Rinehart).
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) Agenda
1. UPL No. 99-01 - Chris Telfer
Mr. Tyner reviewed the recommendation of the UPL Committee to authorize a Cease & Desist Agreement between the Oregon State Bar and Chris Telfer. Ms. Naucler suggested that information about this action be sent to other boards, such as the State Board of Accountancy.
Action: Mr. Tyner moved, Mr. Scott seconded, to authorize a Cease and Desist Agreement between the Oregon State Bar and Chris Telfer in the matter of UPL No. 99-01. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
2. UPL No. 96-14 - Roger Reason dba Harney County Title Co.
Mr. Tyner presented the recommendation of the UPL Committee to authorize a a lawsuit for injunctive relief against Mr. Reason, dba Harney County Title Co., for the unlawful practice of law.
Action: Mr. Tyner moved, Mr. Scott seconded, to authorize a lawsuit for injunctive relief against Roger Reason, dba Harney County Title Company, UPL No. 96-14. The motion was approved by the board (12-0-4; absent Hytowitz, Sowle, Sumner, Williamson).
B. Disciplinary Counsel’s Status Report
Mr. Sapiro gave a general overview of his status report.
C. Pending Litigation
A status report of the following litigation was included on the agenda. Ms. Stevens commented on various matters and answered questions.
1. Erwin v. OSB (Clackamas County Circuit Court).
2. Arnold v. Marandas, et al. (US District Court for District of Oregon Case No. 98-706-AS).
3. Kluge v. OSB (Marion County Circuit Court
4. Eardley v. Garst et al. (US District Court for the District of Oregon
5. Parker v. Kitzhaber, et al. (US District Court for the District of Oregon).
6. Garst v. Myers (Supreme Court of Oregon).