{{Short description|Bar Association}} {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2025}} {{Infobox government agency | agency_name = Oregon State Bar | logo = Oregon State Bar logo.png | logo_width = 250px | logo_caption = | seal = | seal_width = | seal_caption = | formed = 1935 | preceding1 = | preceding2 = | dissolved = | superseding = | jurisdiction = Oregon | headquarters = Tigard, Oregon, USA | employees = 95 | budget = $14 million | minister1_name = | minister1_pfo = | minister2_name = | minister2_pfo = | chief1_name = | chief1_position = | chief2_name = | chief2_position = | parent_agency = Oregon Judicial Department | child1_agency = | child2_agency = | child3_agency = | child4_agency = | child5_agency = | child6_agency = | website = [http://www.osbar.org www.osbar.org] | footnotes = }} The '''Oregon State Bar (OSB)''' is a public corporation and instrumentality of the Oregon Judicial Department in the U.S. state of Oregon. Founded in 1890 as the private '''Oregon Bar Association''', it became a public entity in 1935 that regulates the legal profession. The public corporation is part of the Oregon Judicial Department.
Lawyers are required to join the OSB in order to practice law in Oregon, unless an exception applies.<ref>ORS § 9.160</ref>
OSB is charged with administering lawyer admissions and discipline, pursuant to rules proposed by bar association and approved by the Oregon Supreme Court. It also administers the Legal Services Program which funds legal aid in Oregon and provides accountability by maintaining standards and guidelines for legal aid providers.
OSB is governed by a 19 person Board of Governors — 15 of the board's members are lawyers, and four are public members.<ref name = osbBoGcomp>{{cite web | url = https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_9.025 | title = ORS 9.025(1)(a) | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = OregonLaws.org | access-date = Oct 14, 2024 | quote = }}</ref>
== Summary == thumb|Offices in Tigard Oregon has an "integrated bar": all attorneys in Oregon are required to join the Oregon State Bar if they desire to practice law in Oregon.<ref name = osbabout>{{cite web | url = http://www.osbar.org/osbinfo.htm | title = Oregon State Bar General Information | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = OSB | access-date = Oct 31, 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
Membership fees and program fees from the 16,000 active members, together with revenue from bar programs, fund the entire budget of the agency.<ref name=osbabout/> OSB has approximately 100 employees and is overseen by a Board of Governors.<ref name=osbabout/> This 19 person board group along with the 200-member House of Delegates and the Oregon Supreme Court provide governance for the agency's activities.<ref name=osbabout/>
OSB also administers a board on attorney discipline and the Board of Bar Examiners.<ref name=osbabout/> Additionally, the bar makes recommendations for filing mid-term judicial vacancies in the courts of the Oregon Judicial Department.<ref name = appointment>{{cite news | type = Editorial | author = | title = Here Come the Judges | url = | newspaper = The Oregonian | location = | publisher = | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Mar 16, 2004 | at = p.B* }}</ref> These recommendations are given to the Governor of Oregon who makes the final appointment decision.<ref name=appointment/>
Most lawyers in private practice are also required to participate in the Oregon Professional Liability Fund, a self-funded insurance program.<ref name = ins>{{cite news | author1-last = Cooper | author1-first = Alan | title = Mandatory insurance mulled | url = | newspaper = Virginia Lawyers Weekly | location = | publisher = | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Mar 27, 2006 | at = }}</ref> As of 2006, the program premium was $3,000 per year for $300,000 in coverage.<ref name=ins/> Oregon was the first state to adopt the mandatory insurance scheme for attorneys.<ref name=ins/>
OSB administers several programs to facilitate finding legal representation. The bar's Lawyer Referral Service has around 600 attorneys statewide that practice every area of law. The service receives around 75,000 calls per year and makes approximately 50,000 referrals. The Modest Means Program offers reduced fee representation in family law, criminal law, and landlord/tenant cases.
The Problem Solvers Program offers a free 30-minute consultation to teens aged 13–17. The Military Assistance Panel offers two hours of pro bono work to active duty military members. The Lawyer-to-Lawyer Program connects lawyers with more experienced attorneys who are willing to give guidance over the phone at no cost.<ref>{{Cite web |url = https://www.osbar.org/public/ris/ |title = Programs to Help you Find the Right Lawyer |publisher = Oregon State Bar |access-date = Oct 27, 2022 }}</ref>
== Name == The Oregon Bar Association (OBA) was a voluntary association from 1890 to 1935. During its existence, OBA was also commonly referred to as the "Oregon State Bar Association" even though that was not its formal name.
The "Oregon State Bar" (OSB) is a public corporation established in 1935 by the Oregon Legislature to replace OBA. In popular usage, the term "Oregon Bar Association" has been often used to describe OSB.<ref>{{cite news | type = Editorial | author = | title = It's uncommon for a judge to lose his job | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83008376/2016-02-10/ed-1/seq-4/# | newspaper = Daily Astorian | location = Astoria, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Forrester | editor-first = Stephen A. | volume = 143 | issue = 155 | date = Feb 10, 2016 | at = p.4A, col.2 }}</ref>
== History == The Oregon Bar Association was organized on November 8, 1890.<ref name = Org1890>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Nov 8 | title = The organization of the State Bar Association was completed today. | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045604/1890-11-10/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Seattle Post-Intelligencer | location = Seattle, WA | publisher = Leigh S. J. Hunt | editor = | volume = 18 | issue = 182 | date = Nov 10, 1890 | at = p.1, col.6 }}</ref> One vice-president was selected from each of the seven judicial districts of Oregon.<ref name = Org1890/> The original bar association was not created by a statute and was not incorporated.<ref name = Bitterly>{{cite news | title = BITTERLY ATTACKS STATE BAR -- Attorney Ditchburn Declares in Court that Members of Oregon Bar Association Conducted Themselves Badly in Recent Banquet | type = | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1904-04-29/ed-1/seq-2/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor1-last = Jackson | editor1-first = C.S. "Sam" | editor-link = Sam Jackson (publisher) | volume = 3 | issue = 47 | date = Apr 29, 1904 | at = p.2, col.3 }}</ref> Membership was voluntary, although as of July 1, 1927, any lawyer who became a member of a local bar association was automatically deemed to be a member of the Oregon Bar association.<ref name = Bitterly/><ref>{{cite news | title = Bills Are Proposed At Bar Meeting to Aid Justice -- Dean Hale of Law School Present at Annual Bar Association | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1926-10-08/ed-1/seq-3/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor1-last = O'Meara | editor1-first = Jack | editor2-last = Curtis | editor2-first = Clarence Curtis | volume = 28 | issue = 8 | date = Oct 28, 1926 | at = p.3, col.1 }}</ref>
The first president of the Oregon Bar Association was Cyrus A. Dolph, a prominent lawyer who had begun practice in Portland, Oregon in 1866.<ref>{{cite news | title = Prominent Men of the Pacific Coast | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2012260365/1891-04-11/ed-1/seq-7/ | newspaper = The Illustrated West Shore | location = Portland, OR | publisher = West Shore Pub. Co. | editor-last = Samuel | editor-first = Leopold | volume = 17 | issue = 253 | date = Apr 11, 1891 | at = p.7 }}</ref><ref name = OLH>{{Cite web | url = https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05oct/heritage.html | title = Oregon Legal Heritage: Assessing a Legacy :A bar is born | last1 = Dobbs | first1 = Gordon B. | last2 = Alzer | first2 = Cathy Croghan | date = Oct 1, 2005 | website = | publisher = Oregon State Bar | access-date = Dec 26, 2024 | quote = }}</ref> The bar association's first annual meeting was held on October 17, 1891, in Portland.<ref name = First>{{cite news | type = | title = OREGON BAR ASSOCIATION -- Its Record Since Organization Nine Years Ago | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83045782/1900-01-21/ed-1/seq-24/ | newspaper = Sunday Oregonian | location = Portland Oregon | publisher = Henry Pittock | editor-last = Scott | editor-first = Harvey W. | editor-link = Harvey W. Scott | volume = 19 | issue = 3 | date = Jan 21, 1900 | at = p.24 }}</ref> The constitution and by-laws of the association provided for committees on (1) jurisdiction and statutory reform, (2) judicial administration and remedial proceedings, (3) legal education and admission to the bar, (4) grievances as to alleged misconduct by lawyers, and (5) admission and membership.<ref name = First/> There was also an executive committee elected by the association, with other members appointed the association's president.<ref name = First/>
By 1900, the work of the first three committees was found to have overlapped on occasion, and the legislative affairs committee had endorsed too many bills, thereby losing some of the association's credibility with the legislature, which had its own institutional problems in the 1890s<ref name = First/> The grievance committee investigated allegations of misconduct by the public, and if they were found to be well-founded, would bring proceedings against the lawyer in the Supreme Court of Oregon<ref name = First/> It was reported in 1900 that "many complaints are brought on misunderstanding, mostly occurring out of ill-formed arrangements between so-called lawyers who solicit bad collections and their clients."<ref name = First/>
=== Early disciplinary proceedings === As of October 19, 1895, the Oregon Bar Association was working towards the disbarment of eight attorneys, on grounds of false undertakings in attachment and admiralty proceedings, gross drunkenness and misbehavior in court, uttering false certificates for admission of Chinese immigrants, false statements to a notary public, falsifying documents purporting to show payment a debt to an estate, defamation and extortion, embezzlement, larceny, and misappropriation of funds held in trust held for clients.<ref name = BadLawyer>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Or., Oct. 18 | title = OREGON'S BAD LAWYERS -- The Bar Association to Work for the Disbarment of Eight -- Prominent Attorneys Accused of Offenses More or Less Serious | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1895-10-19/ed-1/seq-3/ | newspaper = San Francisco Call | location = San Francisco, CA | publisher = Charles M. Shortridge | editor-last = McNaught | editor-first = John | editor-link = John McNaught (writer) | volume = 78 | issue = 141 | date = Oct 19, 1895 | at = p.3 col.6 }}</ref>
One of the attorneys, U.S. Grant Marquam, who was charged with misappropriation of client funds, was the son of millionaire and prominent politician Philip A. Marquam.<ref name = BadLawyer/><ref>{{cite book | author-last = Gaston | author-first = Joseph P. | author-link = Joseph P. Gaston | volume = 3 | title = Portland, Oregon, Its History and Builders | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=EPcUAAAAYAAJ | chapter = | lccn = | isbn = | location = Portland, Oregon | publisher = S..J. Clark Pub. Co. | date = 1911 | at = p.540 }}</ref> Four of the eight lawyers had been convicted of crimes forming the basis for the disbarment proceedings, and one of those four was already in the state penitentiary.<ref name = BadLawyer/>
=== Advertising restrictions === In 1892, a lawyer ran an advertisement in several daily newspapers which stated: "Divorces a specialty; reliable advice, prompt, attention and moderate fee; no fee until after divorce. Apply Attorney, room 3 at 280½ Washington street, comer Fourth, City."<ref name = Ad1892>{{cite book | author = Oregon Bar Association | title = Proceedings of the Oregon Bar Association at Its Annual Meeting | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=d-1CAQAAMAAJ | volume = 2 | chapter = Appendix D: Report of the Committee on Grievances | lccn = | isbn = | location = Portland, OR | publisher = F.W. Baltes and Co. | date = 1892 | at = p.38 }}</ref> The Grievance Committee found that the advertisement was neither illegal nor grounds for disbarment, but criticized it as being unprofessional.<ref name = Ad1892/> During a discussion of the advertisement, grievance committee member L.B. Cox objected to the attorney's not listing his name and further promising no fee until the divorce was concluded, and argued that these factors were grounds for disbarment.<ref name = AdMotion>{{cite book | author = Oregon Bar Association | title = Proceedings of the Oregon Bar Association at Its Annual Meeting | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=d-1CAQAAMAAJ | volume = 2 | chapter = Remarks of L.B. Cox | lccn = | isbn = | location = Portland, OR | publisher = F.W. Baltes and Co. | date = 1892 | at = pp.19-20 }}</ref> A motion was then passed to refer the matter back to the Grievance Committee with instructions to bring it to the attention of the supreme court.<ref name = AdMotion/>
In 1908 the American Bar Association (ABA) approved 32 "Canons of Professional Ethics." In 1935, those Canons were adopted, in part, by the Oregon Supreme Court and the then-recently organized Oregon State Bar Association.<ref name = Porter>{{cite court | litigants = In re Porter | vol = 320 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 692 | pinpoint = 701 | court = | date = 1995 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/320/692/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> ABA Ethics Canon 27 stated that it was unprofessional conduct for a lawyer to solicit business by advertising.<ref>[http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/ABA%20Canons%20(1908).pdf American Bar Association CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Adopted on August 27, 1908)]</ref>
Many years later, broad bar association restrictions on lawyer advertising were stricken down in ''Bates v. State Bar of Arizona'' as violations of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.<ref name = Bates>{{cite court | litigants = Bates v. State Bar of Arizona | vol = 433 | reporter = U.S. | opinion = 360 | pinpoint = 383 | court = | date = 1977 | url = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/433/350 | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> Even after ''Bates'', bar associations were still free to regulate advertising that was "false, deceptive, or misleading."<ref name = Bates/> Under OSB rules in effect in 2022, the text 1892 advertisement would likely subject the lawyer to discipline, as it is required that the advertisement include the lawyer's name.<ref>[https://www.osbar.org/_docs/rulesregs/orpc.pdf Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(c), Advertising].</ref> Current bar rules further forbid a lawyer from charging "any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is contingent upon the securing of a divorce."<ref>[https://www.osbar.org/_docs/rulesregs/orpc.pdf Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(c)(1), Fees].</ref>
=== Murder of bar prosecuting counsel === thumb|Newspaper headline reporting execution of James A. Finch for the murder of bar association prosecuting attorney Ralph B.Fisher. thumb|Ralph B. Fisher, attorney (left), victim of murder by James A Finch, attorney (right) On the afternoon of Saturday, November 28, 1908, attorney Ralph B. Fisher, who had been the prosecutor for the grievance committee of the Oregon State Bar Association was shot and killed in his Portland office in the Mohawk Building by former attorney James Anderson Finch.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = RALPH FISHER MURDERED -- Former Resident of Polk County Falls Victim to Malice of J.A. Finch | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn96088088/1908-12-01/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Polk County Observer | location = Dallas, OR | publisher = Allgood & Collins | editor1-last = Allgood | editor1-first = Jack | editor2-last = Collins | editor2-first = Dean | volume = 20 | issue = 42 | date = Dec 1, 1908 | at = p.1, col. }}</ref>
Finch had been disbarred for having appeared in court in an intoxicated condition and forging the name and notarial seal of his law partner to an affidavit.<ref name = AttorneyMurder>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Ore. Nov. 28 | title = PORTLAND ATTORNEY MURDERS MAN WHO PROSECUTED HIM | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84036008/1908-12-01/ed-1/seq-3/ | newspaper = Billings Gazette | location = Billings, MT | publisher = Gazette Printing Co. | editor-last = Matheson | editor-first = John D. | volume = 21 | issue = 92 | date = Dec 1, 1908 | at = p.3, col.6 }}</ref> Fisher had presented the disbarment case against Finch to the Oregon Supreme Court.<ref name = AttorneyMurder/>
Wire stories reported Fisher had refused to help Finch be reinstated into the bar.<ref name = Missoulian>{{cite news | type = Dateline: SALEM, Ore., Nov. 11 | title = LAWYER FINCH HANGS TODAY | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025316/1909-11-12/ed-1/seq-7/ | newspaper = The Daily Missoulian | location = Missoula, MT | publisher = Missoulian Pub. Co. | editor = | volume = 36 | issue = 191 | date = Nov 12, 1909 | at = p.7, col.3 }}</ref> The evidence though was that Fisher, even though the bar's prosecutor in a clear case against Finch, had aided him by urging the Supreme Court to find him capable of reform and not impose full disbarment, but rather a suspension only, a recommendation which the court followed.<ref>{{cite news | author = | title = PLEADED FOR FINCH -- Fisher Would Temper Justice With Mercy -- Sought Only Suspension -- Victim of Assassin's Gun Was Instrumental in Saving Finch from Total Disbarment from Bar of Oregon | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83045782/1908-11-29/ed-1/seq-8/ | newspaper = Sunday Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Henry L. Pittock | editor-last = Scott | editor-first = Harvey W. | editor-link = Harvey W. Scott | volume = 27 | issue = 48 | date = Nov 29, 1909 | at = p.8, col.5 }}</ref>
The ''Oregon Daily Journal'' broadly portrayed Finch as mediocre lawyer and a drunk, with revenge as his motive.<ref>{{cite news | type = Front page top headline | author = | title = PROMISING LIFE OF RALPH B. FISHER ENDED WITH FATAL SHOT FIRED BY JAMES H. FINCH -- MURDERER GIVES VICTIM NO TIME FOR DEFENSE -- REVENGE WAS MOTIVE FOR CRIME -- Prominent Young Lawyer Seated at Desk When Assassin Approached Him with Reassuring Words, "Hello, Ralph" | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1908-11-29/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = C.S. "Sam" Jackson | editor-last = | volume = 5 | issue = 37 | date = Nov 29, 1909 | at = p.1 }}</ref> The ''Sunday Oregonian'' provided details such as the nature of the disbarment proceedings for Finch.<ref>{{cite news | author = | title = FINCH DECLINES TO ADMIT GUILT -- Mind of Assassin Is Either Blank or He Is Playing a Clever Game -- Rational in Other Ways -- Fisher's Murderer Does Not Deny Purchase of Revolver but Declares He Was Not Near Mohawk Building | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83045782/1908-11-29/ed-1/seq-8/ | newspaper = Sunday Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Henry L. Pittock | editor-last = Scott | editor-first = Harvey W. | volume = 27 | issue = 48 | date = Nov 29, 1909 | at = p.8, col.1 }}</ref>
Finch was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to death.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = News of the Week ... At Salem, Oregon, James A. Finch, a lawyer, was hanged for the murder ... | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/46032385/1909-11-19/ed-1/seq-10/ | newspaper = The Commoner | location = Lincoln, NE | publisher = William Jennings Bryan | editor-last = Bryan | editor-first = Charles W. | editor-link = Charles W. Bryan | volume = 9 | issue = 45 | date = Nov 19, 1909 | at = p.10, col.2 }}</ref><ref>{{cite court | litigants = State v. Finch | vol = 54 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 482 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1909 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/54/482/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> Governor Frank W. Benson refused to commute the sentence, even though the petition was taken to him personally by Finch's wife, to whom he had been married less than a year.<ref name = TTimes>{{cite news | type = Dateline: Salem, Ore. Nov. 12 (United Press Leased Wire) | title = PORTLAND ATTORNEY DIES ON GALLOWS -- Tragic Heart Rending Scene at Last Meeting of Condemned Man With Wife and Mother -- Makes Statement Concerning Murder of Fellow Lawyer -- Was Crazed With Drink | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88085187/1909-11-13/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Tacoma Times | location = Tacoma, WA | publisher = Tacoma Times Pub. Co. | editor-last = Wells | editor-first = E.H. | volume = 6 | issue = 286 | date = Nov 12, 1909 | at = p.1, col.7 }}</ref> Finch was executed by hanging at Salem on November 12, 1909, in a scene reported luridly in the newspapers.<ref name = TTimes/>
=== Qualifications to practice === At the bar association's annual convention in 1903, lawyer A.F. Flegel proposed the adoption of measures proposed by the committee on legal education and admission to the bar to raise the standard of general and legal education in the legal profession in the state.<ref name = Named>{{cite news | author = | title = OFFICERS ARE NAMED -- State Bar Association Holds Its Annual Session | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1903-11-18/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = C.S. "Sam" Jackson | editor = | volume = 2 | issue = 217 | date = Nov 11, 1903 | at = p.1, col.1 }}</ref> Lawyer R.R. Duniway objected to any change which would make it more difficult for applicants to practice, saying that he could not have practiced if the requirements proposed by the committee had been in effect when he was admitted to the bar.<ref name = Named/> Duniway's remarks that "there is no use in trying to shut out some man who don't know very much, but who would make a rattling good lawyer" were reported to have excited "much amusement", but even so the motion was adopted.<ref name = Named/>
In 1913, the Oregon Supreme Court created a five-member Board of Bar Examiners, appointed by the Oregon Bar Association for three year terms, to determine the qualifications of applicants to the bar, and make recommendations to the supreme court as to whether they should be admitted.<ref name = Board>{{cite book | author1-last = Dodds | author1-first = Gordon B | author2-last = Alzner | author2-first = Cathy Groghan | title = Serving Justice: A History of the Oregon State Bar 1890-2000 | url = | chapter = A Bar is Born 1935 -1945 | chapter-url = | lccn = 2004107281 | isbn = 1879049015 | location = | publisher = OSB | publication-date = 2004 | at = pp.50-51 | no-pp = }}</ref> Before then, candidates for admission had been examined by the court itself, or by its designees.<ref name = Board/>
In November 1915 the board of examiners of the bar association proposed new educational requirements for admission to practice.<ref name = Elevate>{{cite news | type = | title = To Elevate Standard -- Bar Association Desirous of Having Real Lawyers -- Proof of High School Education and Three Years' Study, Named Among Requirements | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn96088088/1915-11-19/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Polk County Observer | location = Dallas, OR | publisher = Lew A. Cater | editor = | volume = 27 | issue = 75 | date = Nov 19, 1915 | at = p.1, col.4 }}</ref> According to a newspaper article published in November 1915, there were hundreds of lawyers in Oregon unable cope with the difficult legal conditions of the time, who had passed the bar examination "when that barricade was more or less a joke.".<ref name = Elevate/> The same article continued to state that "[i]t was customary to pass every applicant for a certificate to practice law in this state, and no matter how little the applicant knew of law, he had a reasonable assurance that he would get that certificate."<ref name = Elevate/>
Under the 1915 proposal, candidates for admission to the bar would be required to have at least a high school education or its equivalent, and would have to show that they had studied law for three years.<ref name = Elevate/> It was not until 1941 that graduation from an approved law school became a requirement for admission.<ref name = Board/>
=== Involvement in Espionage Act prosecution === Henry Albers was a well-known German-American businessman and a principal in the Albers Brothers milling business, which was then a well-established Oregon firm.<ref name = Arrest>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Ore. Oct 21 | title = WELL KNOWN MILLER HELD AS PRO-GERMAN -- Portland Capitalist Arrested for Statements Alleged Made on Train Which Admitted Pro-Germanism | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn99063812/1918-10-21/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = The Evening Herald | location = Klamath, OR | publisher = Herald Pub. Co. | editor-last = Smith | editor-first = Wesley O. | volume = 13 | issue = 8,416 | date = Oct 21, 1918 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> On October 21, 1918, Albers was arrested in Portland, Oregon and charged with violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.<ref name = Arrest/> Affidavits of a deputy U.S. marshall, and others, alleged that on October 8, 1918, while on passenger train running from Grants Pass to Roseburg, Oregon, Albers had said "he was a German and proud of it, and that his brothers were also pro-German."<ref name = Arrest/>
Albers was also accused of saying "the United States could never lick the Kaiser in a thousand years" and, further, that he had abused Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo.<ref name = Arrest/> Albers, who had been born in Germany in 1866, and who had become a naturalized citizen in 1900, was under the influence of liquor at the time.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = ALBERS HELD ON ESPIONAGE ALLEGATION -- President of Albers Bros. Milling Co. Arrested as Result of Alleged Remarks Made on Train on Way to Portland -- Offense, according to Deputy Marshall Who Overheard His Words, Was Committed While Under the Influence of Liquor | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1918-10-21/ed-1/seq-2/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Jackson | editor-first = C.S. "Sam' | volume = 17 | issue = 136 | date = Oct 21, 1918 | at = p.1, col.5 and p.2, col.4 }}</ref> After a jury trial in early February 1919 in Portland, Albers was found guilty.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = Mr.ALBERS FOUND GUILTY ON 2 COUNTS -- Defendant Turns Ashen as Verdict is Read -- New Trial May be Sought -- Forty Years in Prison, $20,000 Fine Maximum Penalty -- Brother Voices Regret | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1919-02-06/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Piper | editor-first = Edgar B. | volume = 59 | issue = 18,161 | date = Feb 6, 1919 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> On March 17, 1919, Albers was sentenced to three years of penal servitude at the U.S. penitentiary on McNeil Island and to pay a $10,000 fine.<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Mar. 17 (AP) | title = ALBERS SENTENCED | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2003260223/1919-03-17/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = The Evening News | location = Roseburg, OR | publisher = Bates & Bates | editor = | volume = 10 | issue = 65 | date = Mar 17, 1919 | at = p.1, col.6 }}</ref> Albers filed an appeal. and was at liberty while it was pending.<ref name = Cert/>
In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Albers' appeal.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Albers v. United States | vol = 267 | reporter = F. | opinion = 27 | pinpoint = | court = 9th Cir. | date = 1920 | url = https://cite.case.law/f/263/27/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = , certiorari granted 252 U.S. ___, 40 Sup.Ct. 584 (1920)}}</ref> In June, 1920, the Albers case was accepted by the United States Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari.<ref name = Cert>{{cite news | type = | title = COURT TO REVIEW HENRY ALBERS CASE -- U.S. Tribunal Reaches Agreement on Hearing -- Portland Manufacturer, Sentenced to McNeil Island, At Liberty Pending Decision | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1920-06-02/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = The Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Piper | editor-first = Edgar B. | volume = 59 | issue = 18,571 | date = Jun 2, 1920 | at = p.1, col.6 }}</ref>
In April 1921, when the case was called for oral argument, Solicitor General of the United States William L. Frierson conceded there had been an error in the Albers case, and moved to vacate the conviction.<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: Washington April 27 | title = CONVICTION OF ALBERS IS QUASHED -- U.S. Confesses Error in Espionage Case and Asks Reversal by Supreme Court; Sentence and Fine are Automatically Halted | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1921-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Jackson | editor-first = C.S. "Sam" | volume = 20 | issue = 43 | date = Apr 27, 1921 | at = p.1, col.7 }}</ref> The error appears to have been the admission of evidence of alleged pro-German statements by Albers before war had been declared.<ref name = Cert/>
The Oregon Bar Association then attempted to intervene in the case as a non-party.<ref name = Intervene>{{cite news | type = Dateline: THE OREGONIAN NEWS BUREAU, Washington, D.C., May 3 | title = ALBERS' RETRIAL IS TO BE ORDERED -- McNary Reports Promise by Solicitor-General -- Bar Association Wins -- Senator Acts on Request to Fight Decision | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1921-05-04/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Piper | editor-first = Edgar B. | volume = 60 | issue = 18,861 | date = May 4, 1921 | at = p.1, col.6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author = | title = State Bar to Take Up Albers' Case | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1921-04-29/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Jackson | editor-first = C.S. "Sam" | volume = 20 | issue = 45 | date = Apr 29, 1921 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> The bar association sent a telegram to Oregon's U.S. Senator Charles L. McNary which requested that the senator go before the Supreme Court and move for a stay of the order reversing the conviction of Albers.<ref name = Intervene/> The bar protested the action of the Department of Justice in confessing error in the case, which had resulted in the case being remanded to the U.S. district court in Oregon.<ref name = Intervene/>
The telegram further asked that the bar association be given the privilege of appearing in the case at a hearing on the merits.<ref name = Intervene/> McNary, acting as lawyer for the bar association, presented a formal petition to the Supreme Court.<ref name = ShutOut/> The court, in a one-sentence opinion, denied the bar association's effort to intervene in the case.<ref name = ShutOut>{{cite news | type = Dateline: WASHINGTON, D.C., June 6 | author = | title = OREGON BAR IS SHUT OUT OF ALBERS CASE -- Supreme Court Refuses to Permit Intervention | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1921-06-07/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Piper | editor-first = Edgar B. | volume = | issue = | date = Jun 7, 1921 | at = p.1, col. }}</ref>
Albers died of a stroke on July 27, 1921 at his home in Milwaukie, Oregon, before any remanded proceedings could occur in U.S. district court.<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Ore., July 27 | title = J. Henry Albers Dies of Paralysis at Milwaukie | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1921-07-27/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 43 | issue = 178 | date = Jul 27, 1921 | at = p.1, col.2 }}</ref>
=== The Oregon Law Review === The Oregon Law Review began publication in 1921, with the first editor being Prof. Thomas A. Larrimore.<ref name = LawReview>{{cite news | title = Law Publication Includes Work of Student Writers -- Review's Exchange List Brings Periodicals to Library at Law School | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1933-10-28/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = Associated Students of the University of Oregon ("ASUO") | editor-last = Saslavsky | editor-first = Joseph | volume = 35 | issue = 8 | date = Oct 28, 1933 | at = p.1, col.2 }}</ref> By 1933 it was a quarterly publication and the official organ of the Oregon Bar Association, with a mailing list of 1350 names.<ref name = LawReview/> After the bar association was formally incorporated as a public agency in 1935, the Oregon Law Review was sent out to all members of the bar who paid the statutory fee.<ref>{{cite news | title = Law Review Reduced in Price | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1936-01-24/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor-last = Johnson | editor-first = Clair | volume = 37 | issue = 50 | date = Jan 23, 1936 | at = p.4, col.4 }}</ref>
=== Bar examination === As of July, 1925, the state board of bar examiners was conducting the bar examination.<ref name = BarExaminers>{{cite news | title = Nine Law Students to Receive Their Degrees -- Willamette University to Honor Class in June -- Graduates Are to Apply for Entrance in the State Bar Association | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1925-05-31/ed-1/seq-10/ | newspaper = Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor-last = Tooze | editor-first = Fred J. | volume = 75 | issue = | date = May 31, 1925 | at = p.10, col.8 }}</ref>
In 1931 the bar examination was given on July 15.<ref name = 1931exam>{{cite news | title = Locals ... David H. Greenburg, of Portland, passed the Oregon State Bar examination ... | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1931-09-10/ed-1/seq-12/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 43 | issue = 216 | date = Sep 10, 1931 | at = p.12, col.2 }}</ref> Of the one hundred and three (103) persons who took the examination, forty five (45) passed.<ref name = 1931exam/> Another source reported that the bar passage rate for the 1931 examination was "about 60 per cent."<ref name = Dome>{{cite news | title = Under the Dome -- Occurrences and gossip at the center of Oregon's state government ... The Oregon state bar examination will be held ... | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1932-07-10/ed-1/seq-5/ | newspaper = Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor-last = Sprague | editor-first = Charles A. | editor-link = Charles A. Sprague | volume = 82 | issue = 90 | date = Jul 10, 1931 | at = p.5, col.1 }}</ref> There were a number of applicants taking the examination for the second time.<ref name = Dome/> At that time, an applicant who did not pass on the second time could not take the examination again unless special permission were granted.<ref name = Dome/>
On May 5, 1933, the bar association voted in favor of a five-year academic course for admission to the legal profession.<ref name = SenateGives>{{cite news | title = BITS FOR BREAKFAST ... The Oregon State Bar association yesterday voted in favor ... | author-last = Hendricks | author-first = R.J. | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1933-05-06/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor-last = Sprague | editor-first = Charles A. | volume = 83 | issue = 35 | date = May 6, 1933 | at = p.4, col.3 }}</ref>
=== Minimum fee schedules === Bar associations used to promulgate and enforce fee schedules as one of their more common activities.<ref name = Duke>{{cite journal | author1-last = Bently | author1-first = Janet F. | author2-last = Buck | author2-first = Peter C. | author3-last = Feagles | author3-first = Prentiss E. | author4-last = Magill | author4-first = Thomas D. | author5-last = Tackaberry | author5-first = Neal E. | title = Bar Association Minimum Fee Schedules and the Antitrust Laws | journal = Duke Law Journal | volume = 1974 | pages = 1164–1226 | date = 1975 | url = https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol23/iss6/3 }}</ref>
The Oregon State Bar Association promulgated a minimum fee schedule before World War II.<ref name = NYT>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND, Ore. Dec. 25 | title = OREGON STATE BAR ENDS FEE SYSTEM | url = https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/26/archives/oregon-state-bar-ends-fee-system-schedule-for-legal-work-draws.html | newspaper = New York Times | location = New York, NY | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Dec 26, 1974 | at = p.33, col.1 }}</ref> The schedule set fee guidelines for a variety of common legal services. "For example, the schedule suggested that lawyers charge $250 for preparing an uncontested divorce. Simple wills and adoptions with no controversy are set at $30 and $100 respectively."<ref name = NYT/>
OSB adopted its first statewide minimum fee schedule on September 29, 1938 after lengthy debate at the annual bar convention.<ref name = BarConclave>{{cite news | title = Bar Conclave Sets Minimum Scale of Fees -- Multnomah Schedule Will Apply to Whole State, Group Decides | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1938-09-30/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = The Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor-last = Sprague | editor-first = Charles A. | volume = 88 | issue = 160 | date = Sep 30, 1938 | at = p.1, col.1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | type = | title = State Bar to Meet in Salem Three Days | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1938-09-24/ed-1/seq-10/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 50 | issue = 228 | date = Sep 24, 1938 | at = p.10, col.5 }}</ref> Originally the proposal was to set minimum fees that would double in counties with more than 100,000 population, of which at that time there was only one, Multnomah County.<ref name = BarConclave/> The convention then voted to apply the Multnomah County schedule to the entire state.<ref name = BarConclave/>
==== Local schedules ==== Proposals to establish or raise minimum lawyer fees were made in Oregon by local bar associations. In 1907, the Umatilla County Bar Association was formed, and at the first organizational meeting, it established a detailed schedule of minimum fees.<ref name = Umatilla>{{cite news | type = | title = LAWYERS ORGANIZE -- Permanent Officers and Scale of Prices Adopted | url = https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88086023/1907-01-07/ed-1/seq-8/ | newspaper = Daily East Oregonian | location = Pendleton, OR | publisher = East Oregonian Pub. Co. | editor-last = Lockley | editor-first = Fred | editor-link = Fred Lockley | volume = 16 | issue = 5,867 | date = Jan 7, 1907 | at = p.8, col.3 }}</ref> Each member of the new bar association pledged not to charge less than the minimum schedule of fees, and not to associate with any attorney who did so.<ref name = Umatilla/>
The Jackson County bar association was newly formed in the summer of 1919, with "the immediate business of the new organization would be to standardize and lift lawyers' fees so as to make them conform with the cost of living."<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: MEDFORD, Or. Aug. 15 (Special) | title = Lawyers Also Want Lift -- Organization Proposes Fees in Line With Cost of Living | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1919-08-15/ed-1/seq-9/ | newspaper = Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Piper | editor-first = Edgar B. | volume = 57 | issue = 18,321 | date = Aug 16, 1919 | at = p.9, col.2 }}</ref>
After adoption of the state-wide fee schedules in 1938, county bar associations were still free to adopt their own minimum fee schedules provided they were approved by the Board of Governors of the state bar.<ref name = NewFees>{{cite news | title = New Fees Given Okeh [sic] -- Certain of Attorney Fees Increased by County Bar Group | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1938-12-04/ed-1/seq-11/ | newspaper = The Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor1-last = Sprague | editor1-first = Charles A. | volume = 88 | issue = 216 | date = Dec 4, 1938 | at = p.11, col.1 }}</ref> Marion County did so in December 1938. It "increased certain of the minimum fees from its depression-established schedule but in nearly all instances the new list remained below fees prescribed in the approved at the state bar convention [in Salem] last fall."<ref name = NewFees/>
Marion County's minimum fees for an uncontested divorce were raised to $75, up $25, which restored the fee to its pre-depression minimum.<ref name = NewFees/> Minimum fees were set lower than the state schedule, for such matters as office calls, examining abstracts, appealing cases to the Oregon Supreme Court and bankruptcy petitions.<ref name = NewFees/> For example the county set a minimum fee of $2 for office calls seeking oral advice, with the state minimum fee at $5.<ref name = NewFees/>
In January 1939, lawyers of Washington County similarly protested that the state fee schedule was too high and "discrediting to the profession."<ref name = WashFees>{{cite news | title = Forest Grove Attorney Heads Bar Group | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn96088480/1939-01-20/ed-1/seq-1/# | newspaper = Beaverton Enterprise | location = Beaverton, OR | publisher = Pioneer Pub. Co. | editor-last = Jeffries | editor-first = Henry H. | volume = 12 | issue = 20 | date = Jan 20, 1939 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> The lawyers passed a motion stating their own county's fee schedule conformed better to the conditions in Washington County.<ref name = WashFees/>
==== Forced abandonment ==== The bar association's minimum fee schedule was still in effect in the early 1960s.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Spencer v. Gladden | vol = 230 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 162 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1962 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/230/162/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> By the early 1970s, these minimum fee schedules were being criticized as having the true purpose to provide "a minimum income level for lawyers above that which would prevail in a free market."<ref name = Duke/>
In 1974, the United States Department of Justice brought a legal action against the Oregon State Bar Association, alleging that by use of minimum fee schedules, the association was violating federal antitrust statutes.<ref name = USvsOSB>{{cite court | litigants = United States v. Oregon State Bar | vol = 385 | reporter = F.Supp | opinion = 507 | pinpoint = | court = D.Or | date = 1974 | url = https://cite.case.law/f-supp/385/507/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref>
The Oregon State Bar sought summary judgment in its favor, arguing that it was not liable under the "state action" and "learned profession" exemptions to the Sherman Antitrust Act.<ref name = USvsOSB/> On November 19, 1974, the U.S. district court in Portland, Oregon ruled against the bar association, opening the association up to Sherman Act liability.<ref name = NYT/>
Within six weeks the bar association abandoned its minimum fee schedule.<ref name = NYT/> Not long after that the United States Supreme Court, in ''Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar'', reached the same result as did the district court in the Oregon case.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar | vol = 421 | reporter = U.S. | opinion = 773 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1975 | url = https://cite.case.law/us/421/773/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref>
=== Former Communist Party members === Applicants for admission to the bar were and remain required to establish that they are persons of good moral character. In the 1950s and early 1960s, membership in the Communist Party was considered highly suspect, and in at least one state (Florida) was considered, at least in dicta, to be per se grounds for denial of admission.<ref name = Wyoming>{{cite journal | author-last = Beyer | author-first = Ross M. | title = Communism versus State Bar Admission | journal = Wyo. L. J. | volume = 12 | pages = 29 | date = 1957 | url = https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlj/vol12/iss1/4 }}</ref> In 1957, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ''Konigsberg vs. State Bar''<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Konigsberg v. State Bar | vol = 353 | reporter = U.S. | opinion = 252 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1957 | url = https://cite.case.law/us/353/252/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> and in ''Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners''<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners | vol = 353 | reporter = U.S. | opinion = 232 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1957 | url = https://cite.case.law/us/353/232/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> that previous membership in the Communist Party could not by itself suffice to prevent a bar applicant from proving that he was a person of good moral character.
In Oregon, Frank V. Patterson, passed the bar in 1953, but was denied admission because of his previous affiliation with the Communist Party,<ref name = Patterson>{{cite court | litigants = Application of Patterson | vol = 210 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 495 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1956 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/210/495/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> Aided by the American Civil Liberties Union,<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: PORTLAND (AP) | author = | title = Supreme Court Rules For Lawyer | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1957-05-20/ed-1/seq-3/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor1-last = Mitchelmore | editor1-first = Charles | volume = 58 | issue = 133 | date = May 20, 1957 | at = p.3, col.4 }}</ref> Patterson sought and was granted review in the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the Oregon Supreme Court, and ordered the Oregon court to review the matter in light of the then-recent ''Konigsberg'' and ''Schware'' decisions.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = In re Patterson | vol = 353 | reporter = U.S. | opinion = 952 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1957 | url = | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> On remand, the bar's decision to deny Patterson admission was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.<ref name = Patterson2>{{cite court | litigants = Application of Patterson | vol = 213 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 398 | pinpoint = 410 | court = | date = 1957 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/213/398/ | access-date= | quote = [D]uring the years 1946-1949, when Patterson was a member of the Communist Party, it was a subversive organization which was on Russia's side in the 'cold war' (as Patterson practically admitted in his testimony), and not, as he would have us believe, merely a political party with a mission to make America, by the use of democratic processes, a more perfect democracy. | postscript = }}</ref> Another applicant, Nick Chaivoe, who had allegedly been a Communist, had been denied admission to the bar in the early 1950s.<ref name = Chaivoe>{{cite book | author1-last = Dodds | author1-first = Gordon B | author2-last = Alzner | author2-first = Cathy Groghan | title = Serving Justice: A History of the Oregon State Bar 1890-2000 | url = | chapter = The Post War Years 1946 -1964 | chapter-url = | lccn = 2004107281 | isbn = 1879049015 | location = | publisher = OSB | publication-date = 2004 | at = pp.90-91 | no-pp = }}</ref> (Chaivoe was eventually admitted to the bar in 1963.)<ref name = Chaivoe/>
When Bernard Jolles applied for admission to the bar in 1963, the bar opposed his admission based on the fact that when seeking admission to his law school, Northwestern School of Law, that he had not disclosed that he had previously been a member of the Communist Party.<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: SALEM (UPI) | author = | title = Court Okays Former Red | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn99063813/1963-06-19/ed-1/seq-1/#words=Bernard+Jolles | newspaper = Herald and News | location = Klamath Falls, OR | publisher = Klamath Pub. Co. | editor = | volume = | issue = 7,172 | date = June 19, 1963 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> Jolles was fully aware of the ''Patterson'' decision, and developed his legal strategy with that case in mind.<ref name = Jolles>{{cite web | url = https://digitalcollections.ohs.org/sr-1204-oral-history-interview-with-bernard-jolles | title = Oral history interview with Bernard Jolles [Sound Recording 07] | format = audiocassette | last = Jolles | first = Bernard | interviewer-last = Bulkley | interviewer-first = Robert D. Jr. | date = Nov 14, 1990 | at = 00:16:00 to 00:28:15 | website = Oregon Historical Society | publisher = United States District Court Oral History Project | access-date = Nov 3, 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
The Oregon Supreme Court, finding that Jolles had abandoned his allegiance to the Communist Party, admitted him to the bar association on a 4-2 vote, with then-recently appointed Justice Arno Denecke recusing himself.<ref name = InReJolles>{{cite court | litigants = In Re Bernard Jolles | vol = 235 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 262 | pinpoint = | court = Or | date = 1963 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/235/262/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> Jolles still could not practice in federal court, because, although normally a matter of course, his application for admission to the bar of the U.S. District Court for Oregon was delayed for two years.<ref name = Jolles/> Jolles believed that District Court judge Gus J. Solomon was eventually instrumental in securing Jolles' admission.<ref name = Jolles/> Twenty-five years later, in 1987, Jolles became president of the Oregon State Bar Association.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.osbar.org/_docs/leadership/bog/PastBOGpresidents.pdf | title = Oregon State Bar Presidents 1935-Present | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = Oregon State Bar | access-date = Oct 31, 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
== Incorporation of the bar as a public agency == === Early proposals === On January 3, 1933, it was reported that at a closed door meeting of the executive directors of the bar association, there had been a discussion of presenting to the legislature a proposal to incorporate the bar association and giving it disciplinary authority over its members.<ref name = ClosedDoor>{{cite news | type = Dateline: Portland, Jan. 3 (AP) | title = PLAN TO INCORPORATE BAR ASSOCIATION | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1933-01-03/ed-1/seq-5/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 45 | issue = 2 | date = Jan 3, 1933 | at = p.5, col.4 }}</ref> The measure was said to have had the objective of raising the standard of legal practice.<ref name = ClosedDoor/>
The bill was introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives on February 9, 1933 by the committee on the judiciary.<ref name = Introduced>{{cite news | type = | title = LAWYERS MUST BE MEMBERS OF THE BAR | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1933-02-10/ed-1/seq-7/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 45 | issue = 85 | date = Feb 10, 1933 | at = p.7, col.5 }}</ref> Under the terms of the 1933 bill, all persons then entitled to practice law in the State of Oregon, including judges of the supreme, circuit, and the district courts, and, with their consent, the judges of the U.S. district court, would become members of the Oregon State Bar association.<ref name = Introduced/>
The bill provided for a board of governors of three members for each of Oregon's three congressional districts.<ref name = Introduced/> The bill would give the Board of Governors, the authority, by a two-thirds vote following a hearing, to make a recommendation to the Oregon Supreme Court for the disbarment of any member of the bar.<ref name = Introduced/>
=== Establishment as a public corporation === A bill similar to the proposed 1933 legislation was introduced in the 1935 legislature on January 29 by the joint Senate and House judiciary committee.<ref name = SecondBill>{{cite news | type = | title = SENATE GIVES APPROVAL TO 11 BILLS... Bill Introduced to Regulate Practice of Law and Maintain Bar Body | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1935-01-29/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 47 | issue = 25 | date = Jan 29, 1935 | at = p.1, col.5 }}</ref> With the approval of the Oregon Supreme Court, the board of governors would have the power to appoint a committee to examine applicants and make recommendations to the supreme court for admission to practice law.<ref name = SenateGives/> Any inactive member, or persons suspended or disbarred, who were to practice law could be charged with a misdemeanor, and if convicted, could be subject to a fine of $500 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.<ref name = SenateGives/>
On January 31, 1935, after nearly an hour of debate, the bill was passed by the Oregon senate by a vote of 21 to 9.<ref name = Billpasses>{{cite news | type = | title = LAWYER'S BILL PASSES SENATE | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1935-01-31/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 47 | issue = 27 | date = Jan 31, 1935 | at = p.1, col.8 }}</ref> According to a contemporary report, "objection to the measure centered on the contention that such legislation would hit at the 'little' lawyers and would not be workable in regard to the more prominent practitioners."<ref name = Billpasses/>
Senator William H. Strayer, of Baker contended that no lawyer should be compelled to join such an association.<ref name = Billpasses/> It was reported that as he voted, Strayer declared that "the skids are greased and I'm in a revival meeting. I vote no."<ref name = Billpasses/>
By February 20, 1935, the bill had been passed by the Oregon House of Representatives and signed by governor Charles H. Martin.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = LOCALS ... Three men have been nominated for governor ... | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1935-02-20/ed-1/seq-7/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 47 | issue = | date = Feb 20, 1935 | at = p.7, col.2 }}</ref> The legislation took effect on June 12, 1935.<ref>{{cite news | type = | title = STATE BAR TO PICK GOVERNORS | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1935-06-12/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 47 | issue = 140 | date = Jun 12, 1935 | at = p.4, col.4 }}</ref>
Every active lawyer was required to be a member of the newly incorporated Oregon State Bar Association.<ref name = HearsMaguire>{{cite news | title = Phi Delta Phi Hears Maguire -- Suggestions Given to Advance Careers | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1935-11-26/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor-last = Lucas | editor-first = Robert W. | volume = 37 | issue = 39 | date = Nov 26, 1935 | at = p.4, col.1 }}</ref> In 1935 the annual membership fee was $3.<ref>{{cite news | title = STATE BAR ASSOCIATION SET FOR SEPT. 27-28 | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn97071090/1935-05-29/ed-1/seq-8/ | newspaper = Medford Mail Tribune | location = Medford, OR | publisher = Medford Printing Co. | editor-last = Ruhl | editor-first = Robert W. | volume = 30 | issue = 58 | date = May 29, 1935 | at = p.8, cols.5-6 }}</ref>
=== Purpose of incorporation === In August 1935, Oscar Hayter, one of the most prominent attorneys in the state, and soon to be one of the first board of governors of the new association, gave a speech to the Salem Rotary Club in which he outlined some of the goals of the incorporated bar.<ref name = Better>{{cite news | author = | title = OREGON LAWYERS TO BETTER PROFESSION -- Integrated Bar Will Bring Improvement, Is Hayter's Word to Rotarians | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1935-08-29/ed-1/seq-6/ | newspaper = Oregon Statesman | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Statesman Pub. Co. | editor-last = Sprague | editor-first = Charles W. | volume = 85 | issue = 133 | date = Aug 29, 1935 | at = p.6, col.8 }}</ref> Hayter, who had been deeply involved in setting up the integrated bar,<ref name = OLH/> stated: "Under the plan of the integrated bar, the profession hopes to build itself up so its members are above reproach in their dealings. We cannot make men angels overnight, but the new organization, with definite standards and officers, should be able to accomplish much."<ref name = Better/>
=== Governing body and initial officers === The governing body of the incorporated bar association was a nine-member Board of Governors.<ref name = HearsMaguire/> Three governors came from each of the (then) three Congressional districts.<ref name = HearsMaguire/> Each district also had a three-member trial committee.<ref name = HearsMaguire/>
The first president of the Oregon State Bar was Portland attorney Robert F. Maguire.<ref name = President>{{cite news | title = LOCAL LAWYERS APPOINTED TO COMMITTEES | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1935-11-30/ed-1/seq-3/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 47 | issue = 286 | date = Nov 30, 1935 | at = p.3, col.1 }}</ref> In addition to President Maguire, the first board of governors comprised attorneys Oscar Hayter, of Dallas, Circuit Court Judge James T. Brand, of Marshfield, Allan G. Carson, of Salem, H.H. DeArmond, of Bend, Colon R. Eberhard, of La Grande, A.A. Smith, of Baker, Arthur M. Geary, and Nicholas Jaureguy, both of Portland.<ref name = President/> Arthur H. Lewis was treasurer and F.M. Sercombe, also from Portland, was secretary.<ref name = President/>
=== Involvement of law instructors === University of Oregon law school dean, and later U.S. senator Wayne L. Morse was appointed in November 1935 to the committee on legal education and admission.<ref name = ManyPositions>{{cite news | title = Law Profs Have Many Positions | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1935-11-16/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor-last = Lucas | editor-first = Robert W. | volume = 37 | issue = 33 | date = Nov 16, 1935 | at = p.4, col.6 }}</ref> In addition to practicing law, board member Jaurgegay taught, from 1922 to 1942, evidence, negotiable instruments, and trusts at Northwestern School of Law, in Portland, where he was said to have "set extremely high standards for himself and for his students."<ref>{{cite news | type = law firm history | author = | title = McEwan Gisvold LLC: Celebrating 125 Years of Excellence | url = http://storage.cloversites.com/mcewengisvoldllp/documents/125th%20Booklet%20Publication%20-%20final%20(smaller%20file).pdf | newspaper = | location = Portland OR | publisher = self-published | editor-last = Tu | editor-first = Trung D. | volume = | issue = | date = 2011 | at = }}</ref>
== Opposition to Supreme Court expansion == On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, frustrated by New Deal legislation being struck down by the Supreme Court on what were perceived by critics of the court to be dubious constitutional grounds,<ref>{{cite book | author1-last = Schlesinger | author1-first = Arthur M., Jr. | author-link = Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. | title = The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval | url = https://archive.org/download/TheAgeOfRooseveltThePoliticsOfUpheaval/TheAgeOfRooseveltThePoliticsOfUpheaval.pdf | chapter = Ch.26. Storm Over the Constitution | chapter-url = | lccn = | isbn = 0618340874 | location = Cambridge, MA | publisher = Houghton Mifflin | publication-date = 1960 | at = pp.484-496 | no-pp = }}</ref> announced he would support legislation which, if enacted would increase the number of justices on the court from nine to up to fifteen. The formal name of the legislation was the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, and it came to be called the "court-packing plan."
After the announcement, an OSB committee sent out a poll to 2,200 members of the bar as to whether they supported or opposed the court-packing plan.<ref name = BarVotes>{{cite news | type = Dateline: Portland, Ore., March 6 (UP) | author = | title = STATE BAR VOTES ON COURT CHANGE | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1937-03-06/ed-1/seq-9/ | newspaper = The Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 49 | issue = 56 | date = Mar 6, 1937 | at = p.9, col.7 }}</ref> On March 6, 1937, Frank P. Keenan, chairman of the committee, announced that 1,640 ballots had been returned, and these ran against the plan by a five to one ratio, specifically 266 votes for and 1,383 votes against.<ref name = BarVotes/>
== Code of ethics == As initially organized, the bar association did not have a formal code of legal ethics. In 1907, at its seventeenth annual meeting, at the Pioneer Courthouse, the association declined to adopt a code.<ref>{{cite news | title = LAWYERS IN SESSION -- Reports Read and Adopted at Opening Session of Seventeenth Annual Meeting of State Association -- Election Tomorrow | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042444/1907-11-19/ed-1/seq-10/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Journal | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Jackson | editor-first = C.S. "Sam" | volume = 6 | issue = 221 | date = Nov 19, 1907 | at = p.10, col.5 }}</ref>
== Resignation from the bar == [[File:Lewis C Garrigus ca 1911.png|thumb|Lewis C. Garrigus, Portland lawyer who resigned in 1895 under threat of disbarment for embezzlement, and was readmitted to the bar ten years later.]]
=== Early procedure === Lawyers in the early years of the bar association could avoid disbarment by resignation, and this was done by two of the eight then facing charges, specifically Harold Pilkington and Lewis C. Garrigus.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Ex Parte Pilkington | vol = 28 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 587 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1895 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/28/587/2264355/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref><ref>{{cite court | litigants = Ex Parte Garrigus | vol = 28 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 587 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1895 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/28/587/2264364/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref>
Garrigus was able to have himself reinstated to the bar in 1905.<ref>{{cite book | author = Oregon Bar Association | title = Proceedings of the Oregon Bar Association at the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Annual Meetings | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=dXhMAAAAYAAJ | chapter = Appendix C: Report of the Grievance Committee | lccn = | isbn = | location = Portland, Oregon | publisher = Commercial Printing Co. | date = 1907 | at = p.37 }}</ref> Harold Pilkington was sentenced to prison for two years for embezzlement, but he may have been able to have himself reinstated in 1914 despite his previous resignation, as there is reported to have a man of the same name having been admitted to the bar in that year.<ref>{{cite news | title = Harold Pilkington, of this city, was admitted to the bar ... | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1914-09-24/ed-1/seq-8/ | newspaper = Morning Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = Henry L. Pittock | editor-last = Scott | editor-first = Harvey W. | volume = 54 | issue = 16,796 | date = Sep 24, 1914 | at = p.8, col.8 }}</ref> Only a few years later, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that an attorney's resignation would no longer be effective if disbarment were pending.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Ex parte Thompson | vol = 32 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 499 | pinpoint = 502 | court = | date = 1898 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/32/499/ | access-date= | quote = The accused, having been convicted of a felony while he sustained the relation of an attorney, ought not to be permitted, by his voluntary act, to have his name stricken from the roll of attorneys while charges are pending against him. | postscript = }}</ref>
=== Form B resignation === A Form B resignation is the functional equivalent of being disbarred from a Bar association, and means that the submitting member of the bar resigned while facing disciplinary charges from the bar tribunal. Members of the Oregon State bar who enter a Form B Resignation are not eligible to be readmitted to the bar again.<ref>{{cite news | title= Bar lowers the boom on Samwick | author-last = Duin | author-first = Steve | work = The Oregonian | date = May 8, 2008 | access-date = 2008-09-24 | url = http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1210215303290180.xml&coll=7 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title= County says Johnson attorney overcharged: Pangburn had resigned from Oregon State Bar | author-last = Stahl | author-first = Greg | work = Idaho Mountain Express | date = Jun 15, 2005 | access-date = 2008-09-24 | url = http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005103544 }} </ref>
=== Permanent disbarment === Until December 31, 1995, disbarred lawyers could apply for reinstatement five years after the effective date of their disbarment.<ref>Oregon State Bar Rule 6.1(d) (1992)</ref> As of January 1, 1996, disbarment is permanent.<ref>Oregon State Bar Rule 6.1(e), 8.1(a)(iii) (effective January 1, 1996).</ref> Oregon is one of the few states where disbarment is automatically permanent, the others being Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.<ref>{{Citation | author1 = Supreme Court of New Jersey | author2 = Office of Attorney Ethics | title = 2020 State of the Disciplinary System Report | journal = | volume = | issue = | date = May 2021 | at = p.8 | url = https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/oae/2020oaeannualrpt.pdf?c=5y7 }}</ref>
== Bar programs == === Client Security Fund === ==== Purpose and procedure ==== Like most other states, the Oregon State Bar Association has established a "Client Security Fund" which will reimburse clients, up to a certain amount, who are victims of their own lawyer's dishonesty. To be eligible for a CSF award, there must evidence of dishonesty in an established lawyer-client relationship or the lawyer must have acting in a fiduciary capacity related to the lawyer's practice of law. "Dishonesty" includes failing to refund fees where no work was done on the matter or where the work done was de minimis or of no value to the client.<ref>{{Citation | author-last = Stevens | author-first = Sylvia E. | title = Bar Counsel = Another Challenging Year - Annual Report of the OSB Client Security Fund | journal = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | volume = | issue = | date = Feb 2013 | pages = | url = https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/14febmar/barcounsel.html }}</ref>
==== Decision to create fund ==== In late September 1958, the bar association voted at its annual convention to adopt an indemnity plan to protect clients against losses of funds entrusted to a member of the profession.<ref name = Helm>{{cite news | type = | author = | editor-last = Anderson | editor-first = Ray C. | title = Carl Helm Jr. Bar Association Vice President | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2006260039/1958-09-30/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = La Grande Evening Observer | location = La Grande, OR | publisher = | volume = | issue = | date = Sep 30, 1958 | at = p.1, col.7 }}</ref> This was reported to have set "nation-wide legal history.".<ref name = Helm/> According to an editorial published in November 1963 in favor of the "client indemnification plan", the concept was relatively new, but had been catching on rapidly.<ref name = rapidly>{{cite news | type = editorial | author = | editor-last = | editor-first = | title = Oregon lawyers sending in ballots on client indemnification fund | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn96088244/1963-11-07/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = The Bend Bulletin | location = Bend, OR | publisher = | volume = | issue = | date = Nov 11, 1963 | at = p.4, col.1 }}</ref> The 1963 editorial stated that "the inauguration of the client indemnity fund would not be an admission, tacit or otherwise, that there are crooks active in the practice of law In the state. Nor would it be an accusation against other members of the bar. It would affirm their responsibility to the public. It would be an assurance that lawyers as a whole are so proud of their profession, so confident of their fellows, that they are willing to tax themselves to protect their clients against the occasional misdeeds of a few."<ref name = rapidly/>
==== First effort fails in 1959 ==== In March 1959, a bill was introduced in the Oregon Legislature which would have set up a fund to reimburse the public when attorneys embezzled funds of their clients.<ref name = KillsAssessment>{{cite news | type = Dateline: SALEM (AP) | author = | editor-last = Stanton | editor-first = Charles V. | title = House Committee Kills Law Assessment Fund | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2003260229/1959-03-25/ed-1/seq-9/ | newspaper = News-Review | location = Roseburg, OR | publisher = | volume = 59 | issue = 71 | date = March 25, 1959 | at = p.9, col.3 }}</ref> The bill was recommended by the Oregon State Bar.<ref name = KillsAssessment/> The system would be funded by assessments on the members of the bar.<ref name = KillsAssessment/> On March 24, 1959, the bill was voted down in the Judiciary Committee of the Oregon House of Representatives. According to a report, "the committee felt it would be unfair to require honest attorneys to pay for the sins of dishonest lawyers and that the bill would have encouraged claims against the proposed fund.".<ref name = KillsAssessment/> According to an editorial from the time that was critical of the 1959 legislature, "the lawyers indemnity fund, a self-financed tax upon the lawyers of the state to pay losses from the occasional embezzling attorney, was killed by a committee of house lawyers."<ref name = killed>{{cite news | type = editorial | author = | editor-last = Chandler | editor-first = Robert W. | title = It was fitting, in a Centennial year, to have the worst Legislature in history | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90051770/1959-05-09/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Bend Bulletin | location = Bend, OR | publisher = | volume = 56 | issue = 131 | date = May 9, 1959 | at = p.4, col.1 }}</ref>
==== Renewed initiatives ==== The controversial indemnity fund issue was taken up again at the bar convention in late September 1959.<ref name = dizzy>{{cite news | title = Oregon Lawyers Keep Busy in Dizzy Whirl of Convention Events | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90051770/1959-09-25/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Bend Bulletin | location = Bend, OR | publisher = | editor-last = | editor-first = | volume = 56 | issue = 247 | date = Sep 25, 1859 | at = }}</ref> Bar president George L. Hibbard turned in a report to the bar that recommended adoption of the program.<ref name = dizzy/> Although the indemnity fund proposal had previously been tabled by the House Judiciary Committee, President Hibbard recommended that the bar campaign to get the measure passed at the next legislative session.<ref name = dizzy/> According to a press report of at the time, "those who don't like the idea have been pretty noisy in their condemnation of the plan.'Why should we honest lawyers have to dig down to protect clients against the unscruplous few who should be drummed out of the club?' is the substance of their argument.".<ref name = dizzy/> The same report stated that "those who favor the plan say that such a fund would at stature to the high principles of the profession."<ref name = dizzy/>
On Friday, November 15, 1963, the Oregon State Bar Association conducted a secret ballot mail poll of Oregon lawyers regarding the association's proposal to establish a "client security fund."<ref name = LawyersOppose>{{cite news | title = Lawyers Oppose 'Security Fund' in Secret Polling | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn99063863/1963-11-21/ed-1/seq-4/ | newspaper = Nyssa Gate City Journal | location = Nyssa, OR | publisher = | editor-last = Brammer | editor-first = Ted M. | volume = 57 | issue = 47 | date = Nov 21, 1963 | at = p.4, col.1 }}</ref> The purpose of the fund would be to reimburse clients suffering loss through defalcation, embezzlement, conversion, or misappropriation of funds by their lawyers.<ref name = LawyersOppose/> About 2,533 ballots were mailed out on November 1, 1963 and 1,846 valid ballots were returned.<ref name = LawyersOppose/> Of those who returned ballots, 658 lawyers supported establishment of the fund, 109 declined to vote, stating they lacked sufficient information to decide, and 1,079 were opposed.<ref name = LawyersOppose/>
====Successful establishment==== In 1966, at the bar association's annual convention, following considerable debate, the bar adopted by a vote of 142 to 124, a plan to propose that the legislature authorize the bar to create a client security fund.<ref name = Bennett>{{cite court | litigants = Bennett v. Oregon State Bar | vol = 256 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 27 | pinpoint = 44 | court = Or | date = 1970 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/256/37/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> The 1967 Oregon Legislature enacted enabling legislation.<ref>1967 OR. SESSION LAWS, Ch. 546.</ref> This was later codified as the Client Security Fund Act.<ref>ORS §§ 9.615-9.665 (1967).</ref>
The Client Security Fund Act authorized the bar to adopt a plan by which clients who suffered financial losses because of dishonest conduct of bar members could be reimbursed. The funds would be raised primarily by a standard compulsory payment by all members of the bar.<ref name = Bennett/> The act of the 1967 session (Oregon Laws 1967 Ch. 546) became effective on September 16, 1967.
Soon afterwards at the 1967 annual meeting, the bar approved a resolution establishing the fund.<ref name = Bennett/> The bar's board of governors at their November 10–11, 1967, meeting adopted a motion providing for an annual membership assessment of $5 to support the fund.<ref name = Bennett/> At its April 19–20, 1968 meeting the board passed a detailed resolution which set up a complete procedure for administering the program, which came to be called the "Client Security Fund" ("CSF").<ref name = Bennett/>
In 1970, CSF was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court against a challenge that it was unconstitutional on the grounds of equal protection and due process of law.<ref name = Bennett/>
==== Claims history ==== For the first twenty-six years of the Client Security Fund's existence, the maximum claim payable was $25,000 (equivalent to $225,538 in September 2022).<ref>{{Citation | last = Stevens | first = Sylvia E. | title = Bar Counsel: The Annual Report of the OSB Client Security Fund | journal = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | volume = | issue = | date = Apr 2003 | pages = | url = https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/03apr/barcounsel.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm | title = CPI Inflation Calculator | author = Bureau of Labor Statistics | date = | website = | publisher = | access-date = 25 Oct 2022 | quote = }}</ref> The maximum payment per claim was raised to $50,000 in 1993.<ref>{{cite news | author-last = Stevens | author-first = Sylvia E. | title = Bar Counsel: Client Security Funds 2012 Annual Report | url = https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/13febmar/barcounsel.html | newspaper = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | location = Tigard, OR | publisher = | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Feb 2012 | at = }}</ref> In 2012 and in 2019, the Client Security Fund was exhausted by the malfeasance of two attorneys who embezzled large amounts of client moneys from their own trust accounts.<ref>{{cite press release | author = U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Oregon | date = Jun 27, 2022 | title = Former Portland Attorney Pleads Guilty to Embezzling Client Funds | url = https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/former-portland-attorney-pleads-guilty-embezzling-client-funds | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | agency = U.S. Dept of Justice | access-date = }}</ref><ref>{{cite press release | author = U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Oregon | date = Mar 13, 2014 | title = Former Portland and Bend-Area Attorney Sentenced to 63 Months for Embezzling More Than $1.1 Million of Client Funds | url = https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/portland/press-releases/2014/former-portland-and-bend-area-attorney-sentenced-to-63-months-for-embezzling-more-than-1.1-million-of-client-funds | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | agency = U.S. Dept of Justice | access-date = }}</ref> One of these lawyers stole over $3.4 million from clients, which was the worst fraud by a lawyer in Oregon history.<ref name = Worst>{{cite news | title = Former lawyer who stole over $3.4 million pleads guilty -- State bar says it's worst fraud by a lawyer in state history | type = AP story | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn96088244/2022-06-29/ed-1/seq-2/ | newspaper = Bend Bulletin | location = Bend, OR | publisher = Heidi Wright | editor1-last = O'Brien | editor1-first = Gerry | volume = | issue = | date = Jun 29, 2022 | at = p.2, col. 6 }}</ref> The money came from insurance settlements that were supposed to have been paid to the lawyer's clients.<ref name = Worst/> As of June 2022, the Client Security Fund had approved $1.3 million in payouts to lawyer's defrauded clients.<ref name = Worst/>
In response to the 2019 embezzlements, the bar association raised the maximum CSF payment per claim from $50,000 to $100,000, and also backed new legislation, enacted as SB 180, which, as an anti-embezzlement measure, would require insurers to notify clients directly when the insurer paid a settlement to a client's lawyer.<ref name = Upward>{{cite news | author1-last = Hollister | author1-first = Amber | title = Client Security Fund Report: OSB Sees Continuing Upward Trend in Claims | url = https://www.osbar.org/bulletin/issues/2021/2021April/index.html?page=9 | newspaper = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | location = Tigard, OR | publisher = OSB | editor1-last = Austin | editor1-first = Michael | volume = | issue = | date = Apr 2021 | at = pp.9-10 }}</ref>
=== Professional Liability Fund === In 1977, the Oregon Legislature enacted legislation which gave the OSB Board of Governors authority to establish a professional liability fund for the purpose of insuring lawyers against malpractice lawsuits.<ref name = PLFstatute>1977 Oregon Laws Ch. 527 § 1, codified in ORS §§ 9.080 and 9.191.</ref> The fund would be financed by an annual assessment on lawyers in private practice in Oregon.<ref name = PLFstatute/>
Exercising its delegated authority, the Board passed a resolution, effective July 1, 1978, requiring all Oregon based attorneys to carry malpractice coverage with aggregate limits of not less than $100,000.<ref name = Hess>{{cite court | litigants = Hess v. Oregon State Bar | vol = 883 | reporter = F.2d | opinion = 1453 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1989 | url = | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> The resolution further provided that the required malpractice coverage "for all active members in the private practice of law, with the exception of patent attorneys, shall be obtained through" the Fund.<ref name = Hess/>
In 1989, PLF survived a legal challenge on anti-trust grounds.<ref name = Hess/>
As of 2019, Oregon and Idaho are the only two states where lawyers are required to carry professional liability insurance.<ref>{{cite news | author-last = Humiston | author-first = Susan | title = Professional Responsibility - Practicing law without liability insurance | url = https://my.mnbar.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=1b4a4ee4-af15-2afb-ad09-5fd74eff9389&forceDialog=0 | journal = Bench and Bar of Minnesota | location = | publisher = Minnesota State Bar Association | editor-last = Perry | editor-first = Steve | volume = 76 | issue = 9 | date = Oct 2019 | at = p.8 }}</ref> PLF's practice management attorneys and attorney counselors provide confidential services to all Oregon lawyers.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.osbplf.org/ | title = OSB Professional Liability Fund | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = Oregon State Bar Association | access-date = Oct 27, 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
=== Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts === The Oregon State Bar's IOLTA Program (Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts) began on a voluntary basis in 1983. In 1988, the bar members voted to make the IOLTA program mandatory, and the Oregon Supreme Court approved the necessary rule changes, effective May 1, 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.osbar.org/IOLTA | title = Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Reporting | author = Oregon State Bar Association | date = | website = | publisher = | access-date = 21 Oct 2022 | quote = }}</ref> Interest on short term client deposits in lawyer trust accounts is paid by the financial institution to the [https://olf.osbar.org/ Oregon Law Foundation], which uses the revenue "to fund organizations in Oregon that provide legal services to people of lesser means, promote diversity in the legal profession, and educate the public about the law."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://olf.osbar.org/ | title = Where you bank matters! | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = Oregon Law Foundation | access-date = 21 Oct 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
=== Licensed paralegals === On July 19, 2022 the Oregon Supreme Court approved a proposal to license paralegals to provide some legal services that currently only lawyers may provide. Under the new rules, licensed paralegals will be allowed to provide limited legal services only in family law cases (divorces, custody, parenting time, etc.), and landlord/tenant cases.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.osbar.org/lp | title = Paralegal Licensing Proposal | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = Oregon State Bar | access-date = 23 Oct 2022 | quote = }}</ref>
=== Modest Means and legal aid === In October 1912, Associated Charities organized a legal aid committee to provide confidential volunteer legal advice to people in financial distress.<ref name = Labbe>{{Citation | last = | first = | type = Letter to editor (Nov 15, 1912) | title = ADVICE GIVEN TO THOSE IN TROUBLE -- Associated Charities Now Has Legal Aid Committee | journal = Morning Oregonian | place = Portland, OR | volume = 52 | issue = 16,219 | date = Nov 18, 1912 | at = p6, col.6 | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1912-11-18/ed-1/seq-6/ }}</ref> Well-known Portland lawyer C. Henri Labbe was the vice-president.<ref name = Labbe/> In 1945, the Oregon State Bar had a legal aid committee to provide legal services to veterans who could not afford them.<ref name = Overseas>{{Citation | last = | first = | type = Dateline: Portland, OR (Oct 5) AP | title = Overseas Veterans Adopt Children | journal = Herald and News | place = Klamath Falls, OR | volume = | issue = 10,636 | date = Oct 5, 1945 | at = p7, col. 4 | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn99063813/1945-10-05/ed-1/seq-7/ }}</ref>
Oregon lawyers created the Modest Means Program to help moderate income Oregonians find affordable legal help.<ref name = MMP>{{Citation | last = Cooten | first = Blaine | title = Dealing with Sexual Harassment | journal = East Oregonian | volume = 145 | issue = 141 | date = Sep 14, 2021 | pages = A4, column 4 | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn88086023/2021-09-14/ed-1/seq-4/ }}</ref> Eligibility for the program is based on the type of the legal matter, the applicant's income and assets, and the availability of participating attorneys.<ref name = MMP/> If OSB decides that a person is qualified for the program, then the participating lawyer will charge the person a reduced rate for legal work.<ref name = MMP/> The Modest Means Program only available at trial level courts involving four types of legal matters: family law, criminal defense, landlord-tenant, and foreclosure.<ref name = MMP/> Even at the reduced rates, many persons cannot afford legal services through the program.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.koin.com/news/special-reports/justice-for-all-overwhelming-need-for-free-legal-help-in-oregon/ | title = Justice for all: Overwhelming need for free legal help in Oregon – Attorneys volunteer services, but demand outpaces supply | last = Lambert | first = Hannah Ray | date = Feb 5, 2020 | website = | publisher = KOIN News 6 | access-date = Oct 19, 2024 | quote = }}</ref>
== Public Records Law == In March 1936, the board of governors of the newly-incorporated bar association declined to release the names of three attorneys who had received bar reprimands for unethical conduct, as well as the names of two other attorneys who had been exonerated.<ref>{{cite news | type = Dateline: Portland, Ore., March 23 (AP) | title = EXONERATION FOR ATTORNEYS VOTED | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1936-03-23/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 48 | issue = 71 | date = Mar 23, 1936 | at = p.1 col.1}}</ref> Records, or at least some of them, did become public when the bar association sought an actual suspension of an attorney from practice by a filing in the Oregon Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite news | type = | author = | title = SUSPENSION OF GLOVER FROM BAR REQUESTED | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn90066132/1937-02-10/ed-1/seq-9/ | newspaper = The Capital Journal | location = Salem, OR | publisher = Journal Pub. Co. | editor-last = Putnam | editor-first = George | volume = 49 | issue = 35 | date = Feb 10, 1937 | at = p.9, col.6 }}</ref>
In 1973, the Oregon Legislature passed the Oregon Public Records Law. <ref>{{cite news | author1-last = Thomas | author1-first = Dick | title = Opening the Public Files | url = | newspaper = The Oregonian | location = Portland, OR | publisher = | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Feb 23, 1992 | at = p.C7 }}</ref>
In June 1974, Russell Sadler, a reporter for the Salem Capital Journal sought disciplinary records related to lawyer and politician Jason Lee, who was standing as a candidate for a judgeship on the Oregon Court of Appeals.<ref name = Newsmen>{{cite news | type = Dateline: UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL | author1-last = Robinson | author1-first = Sue | title = Salem newsmen seek access to Jason Lee's files | url = https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2004260239/1974-06-26/ed-1/seq-1/ | newspaper = Oregon Daily Emerald | location = Eugene, OR | publisher = ASUO | editor1-last = Heikes | editor1-first = Drex | volume = 75 | issue = 170 | date = Jun 26, 1974 | at = p.1, col.1 }}</ref> Oregon Attorney General Lee Johnson had recently ordered the bar association to produce records for another lawyer, also at the request of the Capital Journal, and the association had similarly refused.<ref name = Newsmen/> (The newspaper dropped that request when it learned the information from another source.)<ref name = Newsmen/>
James Welch, managing editor of the Capital Journal, stated that the newspaper's interest was based on the fact that Lee had narrowly defeated incumbent judge Jacob Tanzer in the primary election held on May 28, 1974, despite Tanzer's having had overwhelming support from members of the Oregon State Bar.<ref name = Newsmen/>
Lee had been reprimanded by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1965, and this was already on the public record.<ref>{{cite court | litigants = In re Conduct of Jason Lee | vol = 242 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 302 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 265 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/242/302/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> The newspaper wanted to see his disciplinary file to ascertain if there were other complaints on file regarding Lee.<ref name = Newsmen/>
Sadler brought legal action under the Oregon Public Records law to enforce his request, and in 1975, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in his favor and required disclosure of the records.<ref name = Sadler>{{cite court | litigants = Sadler v. Oregon State Bar | vol = 275 | reporter = Or. | opinion = 279 | pinpoint = | court = | date = 1976 | url = https://cite.case.law/or/275/279/ | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> Oregon became the first state in the nation to provide complete access to all records, including grievances from clients.<ref>{{cite news | author-last = Hyman | author-first = Mark | title = Dealing with misbehaving lawyers; In Oregon, grievances are public record; not so in Maryland | url = | newspaper = Baltimore Sun | location = Baltimore, MD | publisher = | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = May 28, 1996 | at = p.1A }}</ref>
== Challenge to the unified bar == thumb|Controversial articles and graphic design published in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin in April 2018
=== Supreme Court restriction on "non-germane" activities === OSB is an "integrated" or "unified" bar, meaning that all lawyers in the state are required to belong to the association.<ref name = Unified>{{cite web | url = https://www.osbar.org/resources/unifiedbar.html | title = Q&A: Unified Bars and Federal Litigation | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = OSB | access-date = Nov 6, 2022 | quote = }}</ref> As of 2020, thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have unified bars.<ref>{{cite news | type = | author-last = Levin | author-first = Leslie B. | title = The End of Mandatory State Bars? | url = https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/04/Levin_The-End-of-Mandatory-State-Bars.pdf | newspaper = Georgetown Law Journal On-Line | location = | publisher = | editor = | volume = 109 | issue = | date = 2020 | at = p.2 }}</ref><ref name = PostJanus>{{cite news | type = | author-last = Cavicchia | author-first = Marilyn | title = The post-Janus world: A look at recent court challenges to mandatory bars | url = https://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_services/publications/bar_leader/2021_22/july-august/the-post-janus-world-a-look-at-recent-court-challenges-to-mandatory-bars/ | newspaper = ABA Bar Leader | location = | publisher = American Bar Association | editor = | volume = 47 | issue = 6 | date = Jul 22, 2022 | at = }}</ref>
In 1990, in the case of ''Keller v. State Bar of California'', the Supreme Court held that a state could require lawyers to belong to an integrated bar association, but prohibited integrated bars from funding with mandatory dues "activities having political or ideological coloration which are not reasonably related to the advancement of [its regulatory] goals."<ref name = Crowe/>
Lawyers have sued a number of unified bars alleging that under the 2018 Supreme Court decision in ''Janus v. AFSCME'', it is unconstitutional to require an attorney join a bar association to practice law.<ref name = Unified/>
=== OSB publication of political material === OSB publishes a monthly magazine called the ''[https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/bulletin.html Oregon State Bar Bulletin]'' which is printed using funds from membership dues and which is sent to all members of the Oregon State Bar.
In April 2018 two statements allegedly of a political nature were published in the bar bulletin. One, entitled "Statement on White Nationalism and Normalization of Violence", was signed by six officers of the Bar.<ref name = BarStatement>{{cite news | type = editorial | author1-last = Nordyke | author1-first = V.A. | author2-last = Puente | author2-first = J. | author3-last = Hiersbiel | author3-first = H. | author4-last = Constantino | author4-first = C. R. | author5-last = Reeves | author5-first = L. | author6-last = Patterson | author6-first = J. | title = Statement on White Nationalism and Normalization of Violence | url = https://www.osbar.org/bulletin/issues/2018/2018April/index.html | newspaper = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | location = Tigard, OR | publisher = OSB | editor-last = Hankin | editor-first = Julie A. | volume = | issue = | date = Apr 2018 | at = p.42 }}</ref> The second was a joint supporting statement of seven Oregon affinity bar associations which specifically and repeated criticized President Donald Trump by name for having "catered to this white nationalist movement, allowing it to make up the base of his support and providing it a false sense of legitimacy."<ref>{{cite news | type = editorial | title = Joint Statement of the Oregon Specialty Bar Associations Supporting the Oregon State Bar's Statement ... | url = https://www.osbar.org/bulletin/issues/2018/2018April/index.html | newspaper = Oregon State Bar Bulletin | location = Tigard, OR | publisher = OSB | author1-last = Bechthold | author1-first = D. | author2-last = Markley | author2-first = J. | author3-last = Harris | author3-first = A. | author4-last = Resendiz Gutierrez | author4-first = I. | author5-last = Franco Lucero | author5-first = A. | author6-last = Graham | author6-first = K. | author7-last = Morinaka | author7-first = C. | editor-last = Hankin | editor-first = Julie A. | volume = | issue = | date = Apr 2018 | at = p.43 }}</ref>
The statements were published on facing pages. A green margin band enclosed both statements within a single print area, making the two statements appear to be joined.<ref name = SueOver>{{cite news | type = quoting attorney for plaintiffs | author-last = Tashea | author-first = Jason | title = Oregon lawyers sue over mandatory bar dues in wake of Supreme Court's union dues decision | url = https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/citing_supreme_court_decision_2_lawyers_sue_oregon_state_bar | newspaper = ABA Journal | location = | publisher = American Bar Association | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Sep 18, 2018 | at = }}</ref> According to one report, it was the second statement that "really set off" conservative critics.<ref name = DrawsFire>{{cite news | type = | author-last = Budnick | author-first = Nick | title = Lawyers spar over bar dues, partisanship | url = https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/394282-285904-lawyers-spar-over-bar-dues-partisanship | location = | publisher = Pamplin Media Group | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = May 2, 2018 | at = }}</ref>
At the meeting of the Oregon State Bar's Board of Governors on April 20, 2018, the Bar's chief executive officer noted that the Board of Governors "did not formally adopt the statement by the specialty bar groups" but that "publishing the two statements together was 'ill-advised and confusing.'”<ref>{{cite news | type = quoting attorney for plaintiffs | author-last = Weiss | author-first = Debra Cassens | title = Statements by Oregon State Bar and specialty groups draw fire | url = https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/statements_by_oregon_state_bar_and_specialty_groups_draw_fire | newspaper = ABA Journal | location = | publisher = American Bar Association | editor = | volume = | issue = | date = Apr 24, 2018 | at = }}</ref>
=== Legal action against OSB === In 2018, two lawsuits were brought against the Oregon State Bar, specifically ''Gruber v. OSB''<ref>''Gruber v. Oregon State Bar'', 3:18-cv-01591-JR (USDC Oregon)</ref> and ''Crowe v. OSB''.<ref name = Crowe>{{cite court | litigants = Crowe v. Oregon State Bar | vol = 989 | reporter = F.3d | opinion = 714 | pinpoint = 728 | court = 9th Cir | date = 2021 | url = https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/26/19-35463.pdf | access-date= | quote = | postscript = }}</ref> In ''Crowe'', the plaintiffs alleged that the statements in the ''Bar Bulletin'' were non-germane political advocacy, and for that reason, the requirement for mandatory membership in the bar association violated their rights to freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution of the United States.<ref name = Crowe/>
A lawyer for the plaintiffs stated that the lawsuit "says lawyers should still be licensed, but 'that's different from membership with the bar, which implies somebody speaks for you.'”<ref name = SueOver/>
In 2019, both cases were dismissed by the U.S. District Court.<ref name = PostJanus/> Appeals were taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which gave its decision in 2021.<ref name = PostJanus/> The Ninth Circuit "affirm[ed] the district court as to Plaintiffs’ free speech claim and the adequacy of OSB’s procedural safeguards with respect to protecting Plaintiffs’ free speech rights," but found that "[p]laintiffs' freedom of association claim based on the April 2018 Bulletin statements is viable," and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to consider the claim in the light of the Supreme Court's ''Janus'' decision.<ref name = Crowe/> In February of 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon again rejected plaintiffs' free association claims.<ref name = feb23_gruber_order>{{cite web | url = https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.139661/gov.uscourts.ord.139661.109.0.pdf | title = February 14, 2023 order in Gruber v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Feb 3, 2024 | quote = }}</ref><ref name = feb23_crowe_order>{{cite web | url = https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.142216/gov.uscourts.ord.142216.100.0.pdf | title = February 14, 2023 order in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Feb 3, 2024 | quote = }}</ref>
Both cases were again appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,<ref name = gruber_district_docket>{{cite web | url = https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7769040/gruber-v-oregon-state-bar/ | title = U.S. District Court docket in Gruber v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Feb 3, 2024 | quote = }}</ref><ref name = crowe_district_docket>{{cite web | url = https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8405734/crowe-v-oregon-state-bar/ | title = U.S. District Court docket in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Feb 3, 2024 | quote = }}</ref> which issued decisions on August 28, 2024.<ref name = gruber_2nd_appeal_decision>{{cite web | url = https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.139661/gov.uscourts.ord.139661.112.0.pdf | title = 2nd Ninth Circuit decision in Gruber v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Sep 4, 2024 | quote = }}</ref><ref name = crowe_2nd_appeal_decision>{{cite web | url = https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.142216/gov.uscourts.ord.142216.104.0.pdf | title = 2nd Ninth Circuit decision in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = CourtListener | access-date = Sep 4, 2024 | quote = }}</ref> The Court of Appeals dismissed Crowe's case against the Oregon State Bar on the grounds that the Oregon State Bar is an "arm of the state" that is immune from being sued, however the court also found that OSB officers (who Crowe also sued) are not immune from suit.<ref name="crowe_2nd_appeal_decision" /> Regarding the claims against these officers, the court found<ref name="crowe_2nd_appeal_decision" /> {{Blockquote |text=OSB engaged in nongermane conduct by adopting the Specialty Bars’ statement. . . . At least some of the Specialty Bars’ statement was not germane. The statement opened by describing the Specialty Bars’ “commitment to the vision of a justice system that operates without discrimination,” but much of its criticism of then-President Trump did not relate to the justice system at all . . . .}}
The court then found that "[t]he remedy for this violation need not be drastic," and that "if OSB does engage in nongermane activities, in situations in which those activities might be attributed to its members it could include a disclaimer that makes clear that it does not speak on behalf of all those members."<ref name="crowe_2nd_appeal_decision" />
The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims against OSB in the Gruber case on the same immunity grounds as in the Crowe case, and dismissed the remainder of Gruber's claims (against OSB officers) in light of her resignation from OSB.<ref name="gruber_2nd_appeal_decision" /> Finally, the court upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of OSB officers with regard to Gruber's co-plaintiff's claims.<ref name="gruber_2nd_appeal_decision" />
== See also == * List of Oregon judges * List of first women lawyers and judges in Oregon * List of first minority male lawyers and judges in Oregon * List of Oregon affinity bar associations * Multnomah Bar Association
==Notes== {{reflist}}
== Further reading == * William H. Welch, M.D., Symposium on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar: Public Demand for Better Qualified Bar, 3 Oregon Law Review 269 (1924). * Address by Wayne Morse, U. S. Senator from Oregon, Before the Association of American Law Schools, December 28, 1948, 1948 Association of American Law Schools Handbook, Part Two, at 94–112. * Marion R. Kirkwood, Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, 14 Oregon Law Review 42–66 (1934) * {{cite book | author = Oregon Bar Association | title = of the Oregon Bar Association at the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Annual Meetings | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=dXhMAAAAYAAJ | chapter = Fifteenth Annual Meeting, Appendix C, Report of the Grievance Committee | lccn = | isbn = | location = Portland, Oregon | publisher = Commercial Printing Co. | date = 1907 | at = p.37 }}
== External links == * [https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state/judicial/state-bar.aspx Oregon Blue Book] * [https://books.google.com/books?id=wNo8AAAAIAAJ Proceedings of the Oregon Bar Association at Its Annual Meeting] * [https://case.law/ Harvard Law School Caselaw Access Project] * [https://digitalcollections.ohs.org/sr-1204-oral-history-interview-with-bernard-jolles Oregon Historical Society Oral History Project]
{{coord|45.404476|-122.751145|type:landmark_region:US-OR|display=t}} {{Oregon Judicial System}} {{Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association}} {{State bar associations navbox}} {{Authority control}}
Category:American state bar associations Category:Oregon law Bar Category:1935 establishments in Oregon Category:Tigard, Oregon Category:Organizations established in 1935