Skip to Content
  • Home
  • About the Bar
  • Mission
  • Forms
  • Sitemap
    • Member Directory
      Last Name:
      First Name:
      Bar Number:
      City:


    • Login
OSB Logo
Oregon State Bar Bulletin — AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005

Letters

Take Responsibility
I write in response to the article "Naked Assault on the Public and Courts" by Paul Gowder in the July 2005 issue. I find it particularly ironic that Mr. Gowder’s article appeared in the same issue with the article "Canceling the Debt" by Janine Robben.

Contrary to the shrill tone of Mr. Gowder’s article, I do not find the proposition that people should pay their debts to be a civil rights violation. I would have the law focus on why the debt was incurred. Debt due to some catastrophic event should be treated differently from routine credit card debt. Regardless of whether the credit card industry has driven their behavior, I doubt that most credit card debtors could say with as straight face that they believed that their credit card charges would not have to be repaid. Those people should be required to take responsibility for that debt. Persons who incur debt on account of a catastrophe not of their doing could be treated differently.

If Mr. Gowder had participated in Ms. Robben’s sidebar article, "How to Manage Law School Debt," perhaps he would have added as the final "tip": "File for Bankruptcy."

Peter M. Appleton
Salem

Trust Officials, Jurors
I write to compliment Kathleen Cegla for her recent thoughts on the death penalty (Parting Thoughts, "Oregon’s Death Penalty: Another View," May 2005), and am reminded of another fine article she wrote long ago about myths about a supposedly non-Spanish speaking defendant in Oregon. Her common sense is always appreciated. She reminds us that legal cases are always fact-specific, and that we should have the courtesy to recall the facts of individual cases and how they looked to the prosecutors, judges and juries who decided them. What the public and lawyers think is too often unrelated to what the facts proved to be. I would be the last to claim that courts and the law, arenas of "managed reality" in which "truth" is — appropriately but disconcertingly — but one of many competing values, inevitably produce the right result, but they do produce testimony, evidence and decisions — by police, prosecutors and defenders, juries grand and not so grand, and judges trial and appellate. What a case appears to be at the beginning is often different from what it appears or is decided to be at the end.

There are those who oppose the death penalty because of, in the words of one title, "The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake" — although this can be an argument for doing nothing in a wide range of areas, as what human activity is not subject to such constraints. There are others just philosophically opposed to the death penalty, who have no interest in the facts of individual cases. There are those who believe it is inequitably applied, discriminating against the poor and minorities (although this argument seems to argue too much. There is always a problem with an argument which says that a punishment would be apt, if only it were more widely applied — as that argument, if honest, is not at all opposed to the death penalty). This is an arena in which many arguments concede points only for debaters’ purposes.

There are also fads or trends (to be more polite) in methods of opposing the death penalty. A recent one is to argue that it is applied inequitably (by race, sex, color geography or even, as in Oregon, time...as we have a habit of installing and un-installing the death penalty), and therefore should not be applied at all. Under this argument, on a countrywide basis, because one cannot receive the death penalty in one or more states, one should not receive it in others. Why is the "same" murder "capital" if done in Austin, but not in D.C.? Some of the arguments are arguments against a federal system (however, one could argue the converse, that all states should be required, in the name of "equity," to have capital punishment). When the death penalty is sparingly used, which is more and more the case, statistics become of less and less use in analyzing individual cases. It is a truism of statistics that certain thresholds must be passed before numbers become statistically meaningful. When different people make a series of critical decisions, the results will necessarily vary case by case. Some of us argue that judges should have more discretion (and not be hamstrung by sentencing guidelines), but this "virtue" produces the corresponding effect of "inequity."

It is also ironic that some complain of the time delays in the death penalty when they and their like are responsible for many of the delays, and when these same people often oppose attempts to streamline the system and limit appeals and delays. This is equivalent to those who restrict nuclear power and then complain because it is "too expensive."

We need to respect the public officials and jurors whom we call upon to enforce our laws, and trust them (with all of the reviews that our system allows) to do the right thing.

Alan L. Gallagher
Canby

A New Standard
Thank you for article "Never Say Never" (July 2005) and its analysis of the shift in Supreme Court thinking from Penry v. Linaugh to Atkins v. Virginia. These cases considered the constitutionality of executing people with mental retardation. Penry said it was constitutional. Thirteen years later, Atkins said it was not.

The article noted that the Court reversed course because it recognized, in the intervening years, "a national consensus" against such executions. In doing so, it formulated an interactive relationship between judicial and legislative power:

Our independent evaluation of the issue reveals no reason to disagree with the judgment of the legislatures that have recently addressed the matter and concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal. Atkins.

The partnership was further emphasized in the matter of relief. The Court would announce a constitutional standard but not direct its application:

[W]e leave to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences. Atkins.

Adding a bit of spice to this legal stew is the record of Oregon. Despite the "national consensus" noted by the Court and numerous bills requested by disability advocates, Oregon never enacted legislation to limit the execution of people with mental retardation. In the two sessions since Atkins, the legislature has also refused to set out "appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction."

It’s easy to see why one might never say never at such an intersection of law, politics and morality.

Bob Joondeph
Portland

No Regrets, No Debt
I read with great interest Ms. Robben’s article ("Canceling the Debt," May 2005) on the debt load that law school students have when they graduate. Ms. Robben did not mention the method I used to eliminate my debt. Following my graduation from law school, I enlisted in the US Army. The army has a recruitment incentive called the Loan Repayment Program. In exchange for a three year enlistment, the Army will pay up to $65,000 in student loan debt. There are some drawbacks: The army will only pay principle, not any accumulated interest; and the payment amounts are taxed as income. For myself, however, the opportunity to eliminate my student loan debt in three years time was the right choice. I completed my enlistment, then applied for and received a commission as an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the army.

This option is not for everyone. Army life can be difficult, and being an enlisted soldier with a law degree can be trying. I often asked myself if I had done the right thing, especially while scrubbing latrines or halfway through a 12-mile march with full equipment in the snow and cold of Fort Drum, N.Y. I have now been in the army for over 10 years, and I have no regrets, and no debt.

Shawn W. Gordon
Captain, Judge Advocate
Legal Instructor, 7th Army Training Command
Vilseck, Germany

Take the Ads
As the nation continues to rely heavily on the National Guard in protecting its interests, the Oregon State Bar bans the Guard from advertising in the Bulletin.

As the Bulletin sinks further and further into left field, we wonder what is next? Maybe a few "parting thoughts" that we should elect liberal Democrats in 2006 because President Bush is once again "taking short-sighted swipes at … the working poor … at the bequest of the (evil) finance industry," while, at the same time he gleefully works to "push the economy further into recession."(What recession, you may ask.) The bar, it seems, would prefer to print such DNC tripe than accept an ad from the people who protect them.

I suggest the bar Bulletin accept content appropriate ads from anyone who is willing to pay for them and count on its members to be able to force themselves into not purchasing from people or organizations that they don’t like. To censor speech not because of its content but because of the beliefs of the speaker seems the worst form of censorship.

I also suggest that the powers that be read Kelly Hagan’s article from page one of the July/August 2005 Multnomah Lawyer. In it, MBA President Hagan urges that non-partisanship be a primary goal of the association.

Ron Wade
Portland


— return to top
— return to Table of Contents

  • For The Public

      Public Legal Information

    • Public Information Home
    • Legal Information Topics
    • Oregon Juror Guide
    • Submit Ethics Complaint

    • Getting Legal Help

    • Finding The Right Lawyer
    • Hiring A Lawyer
    • Lawyers Fees

    • Client Services

    • Client Assistance Office
    • Client Security Fund
    • Fee Dispute Resolution
    • Public Records Request
    • Locating Attorney Files

    • Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    • Public Member Application
  • For Members

    OSB Login

    • Log In To OSB Site
    • Member Account Setup
    • Non-Member Account Setup
    • Reset Password

    OSB Resources

    • Attorney's Marketplace
    • Career Center
    • Events
    • Forms Library
    • Online Resources
    • OSB Group Listings
    • Performance Standards
    • Rules Regulations and Policies
    • Surveys and Research Reports
    • Unclaimed Client Funds
    • Voting Regions and By-City
      County Information

    Benefits for
    Oregon Lawyers

    • Log in to Fastcase™
    • – Overview
    • – Scheduled Webinars
    • – Inactive Member Subscriptions
    • No Cost Trust & Billing Software

    Legal Ethics

    • Legal Ethics Home
    • Find an Ethics Opinion
    • Bulletin Bar Counsel Archive

    Company Administrator

    • Company Administrator Home
    • Company Administrator FAQ
    • Authorization Form

    State Lawyers
    Assistance Committee

    • SLAC Info

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Court Information

    • Judicial Vacancies
    • Court Info | Calendars | Jury Info
    • Oregon Attorneys
      in Federal Court
    • Tribal Courts of Oregon

    OSB Publications

    • Bar Bulletin Magazine
    • – Bulletin Archive
    • – Legal Writer Archive
    • Capitol Insider
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter

    PLF Programs

    • (OAAP) Oregon Attorney
      Assistance Program
    • Practice Management Attorneys
    • Malpractice Coverage
  • CLE/Legal Publications

    CLE Seminars

    • CLE Seminars Home
    • Online Seminar Registration
    • General Info/FAQ

    My Account

    • My Content
    • My Events
    • Order History

    Legal Publications

    • Legal Publications Home
    • Log in to BarBooks®
    • BarBooks® FAQ
    • Online Bookstore
    • Legal Pubs Blog
  • Bar Programs

    Diversity & Inclusion

    • Diversity & Inclusion Home
    • Diversity Story Wall
    • D&I Programs
    • ACDI Roster
    • D&I Staff Contacts
    • D&I Links

    Legislative/Public Affairs

    • Legislative Home
    • Committee Contacts
    • Legislative Sessions
    • Staff Contacts
    • Useful Links

    Legal Services Program

    • LSP Home

    Oregon Law Foundation

    • OLF Home
    • Partners in Justice

    Fee Dispute Resolution

    • Fee Dispute Resolution Home

    Pro Bono

    • Pro Bono Home
    • Pro Bono Reporting
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Lawyer Referral and Information Services

    • RIS Login
    • Summary of Referral and Information Services Programs
    • Lawyer Referral Service Info and Registration Forms
    • Modest Means Program Registration Forms
    • Military Assistance Panel Training Info and Registration Form
    • Problem Solvers Registration Form
    • Lawyer To Lawyer Registration Form

    (LRAP) Loan Repayment Assistance Program

    • LRAP Home
    • LRAP FAQ
    • LRAP Policies
  • Member Groups

    Sections

    • Section Info/Websites
    • Joining Sections
    • CLE Registration Services
    • Standard Section Bylaws (PDF)
    • Leadership Resources
    • Treasurers Tools

    Committees

    • Home
    • Leadership Resources
    • Professionalism Commission
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    House of Delegates

    • HOD Home
    • HOD Resources
    • Meetings
    • Rules (PDF)
    • Roster (PDF)
    • Staff Contacts

    Board of Governors

    • BOG Home
    • Meetings & Agendas
    • Members
    • Liaisons
    • Committees
    • Resources
    • Task Forces

    Oregon New Lawyers Division

    • ONLD Home
    • Law Students
    • Student Loan Repayment
    • Committees
    • Upcoming Events

    Task Forces and Special Committees

    • Task Forces Home

    Volunteer Bars

    • List/Contacts
    • Leadership Resources

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities
  • Licensing/Compliance

    Admissions

    • Admissions Home
    • Alternative Admittance
    • Applicants for Admission
    • Admissions Forms
    • Past Bar Exam Results

    Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination

    • SPPE Home

    Licensed Paralegal Program

    • LP Home

    Lawyer Discipline

    • Discipline Home
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter
    • Disciplinary Boards
    • Client Assistance Office
    • (SPRB) State Professional Responsibility Board

    Membership Records

    • Address Changes
    • Good Standing Certificate
    • Request Discipline File Review

    MCLE

    • MCLE Home
    • Program Database
    • Forms
    • Rules (PDF)

    IOLTA Reporting

    • IOLTA Home
    • IOLTA FAQ

    Licensing Fees

    • Licensing Fee FAQ
    • Licensing Fee Payment

    Status Changes

    • Status Changes FAQ
    • Inactive Status Form
    • Retired Status Form
    • Active Pro Bono Status Form
    • Reinstatement Forms
    • Resignation Form A
    • Pending Reinstatements

    Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    Pro Hac Vice/Arbitration

    • Pro Hac Vice
    • Arbitration

    New Lawyer Mentoring Program

    • New Lawyer Mentoring Program Home

    Professional Liability Fund

    • Professional Liability
      Fund Website
For The Public

Public Information Home
Legal Information Topics
Oregon Juror Guide
Finding The Right Lawyer
Hiring A Lawyer
Lawyers Fees
Client Assistance Office
Public Records Request
Unlawful Practice of Law
Fee Dispute Resolution
Client Security Fund
Volunteer Opportunities
for the Public

For Members

BarBooks®
Bulletin Archive
Career Center
Fastcase™
Judicial Vacancies
Legal Ethics Opinions
OSB Group Listings
OSB Login
OSB Rules & Regs
SLAC Info
Surveys and Reports
Volunteer Opportunities

CLE/Legal Pubs

CLE Seminars Home
Legal Publications Home

Bar Programs

Diversity & Inclusion
Fee Arbitration/Mediation
Legal Services Program
Legislative/Public Affairs
Loan Repayment
Assistance Program

Oregon Law Foundation
Pro Bono

Member Groups

Board of Governors
Committees
House of Delegates
Volunteer Bars
Oregon New
Lawyers Division

OSB Sections
Professionalism
Commission

Volunteer Opportunities

About The Bar

About the Bar
ADA Notice
Contact Info
Copyright Notice
Directions to the Bar
Meeting Room Rentals
Mission Statement
OSB Job Opportunities
Privacy Policy
Staff Directory
Terms of Use

Licensing/Compliance

Admissions
Client Assistance Office
Client Security Fund
IOLTA Reporting
Lawyer Discipline
MCLE
Member Fee FAQ
New Lawyer
Mentoring Program

Professional Liability Fund
Status Changes

Oregon State Bar Center

Phone: (503) 620-0222
Toll-free in Oregon: (800) 452-8260
Facsimile: (503) 684-1366

Building Location:
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Tigard, OR 97224

Mailing Address:
PO Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281

Oregon State Bar location Map

Copyright ©1997 Oregon State Bar  ®All rights reserved | ADA Notice | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use