A Golden Century -...

Oregon Supreme Court Building’s 100th Anniversary Gives Rise to Myriad Memories and A Few Surprises

May 2014

A Golden Century

OregOnStateBarBulletin May2014 vOluMe74•nuMBer7

FEATURES

17 A Golden Century Oregon Supreme Court Building’s 100th Anniversary Gives Rise to

Myriad Memories and A Few Surprises

By Melody Finnemore

24 A Cure Worse Than the Disease? Oregon’s New Social Media Law

By Dan Webb Howard

DEPARTMENTS

5 Letters

7 Briefs

42 Bar Notes OSB CLE Bar News

46 Bar Actions Discipline Reinstatements Applications

48 Bar People Among Ourselves

Moves In Memoriam Lawyer Announcements

55 Classifieds

60 Attorneys’ Marketplace

COLUMNS

◗ 9 Bar Counsel What’s GATS Got to Do With

It? International Trade in Legal Services

By Helen Hierschbiel

13 The Legal Writer Plainish English: Write As

You Speak, Unless …

By Elizabeth Ruiz Frost

30 Profiles in the Law Fresh Perspective:

Unplugged and Off the Grid, Bob Weaver Finds Renewed Energy

By Melody Finnemore

32 On Professionalism Grace Under Pressure:

Professionalism Called for in Criminal Law

By Jeff Howes & John Connors

36 Managing Your Practice Treating Clients Well:

Happy Clients Are Your Best Marketing Tool

By Beverly Michaelis

40 President’s Message Building Bridges, Making

Friends: Professionalism in the Digital Age

By Tom Kranovich

62 Parting Thoughts Driving Progress

By Laura J. Mazel

The Oregon State Bar Bulletin (ISSN 0030-4816) is the official publication of the Oregon State Bar. The Bulletin is published 10 times a year (monthly except bimonthly in February/March and August/September) by the Oregon State Bar, 16037 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, Tigard, OR 97224. The Bulletin is mailed to all members of the Oregon State Bar, a portion of the dues for which is allocated for the purpose of a subscription. The Bulletin is also available by subscription to others for $50 per year, $90 per two years, within the United States. Individual copies are $5; back issues are $5 each, when available. Periodicals postage paid at Portland, Oregon 97208. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Oregon State Bar, P.O. Box 231935, Tigard, OR 97281-1935.

iSto

ck

When built in 1914, the new Oregon Supreme Court building also housed the state of Oregon law library, the attorney general’s office and the state’s printing plant, as well as the court. Today the law library, which in 2002 celebrated the completion of a multi-year renovation, draws multitudes to the second floor. The Oregon Su-preme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals share the third-floor courtroom that is beloved for its signature stained-glass ceiling, yellow silk wallpaper and intimate atmosphere. The venerable building has generated an array of memories — mostly fond, but a few fearful — for people who have worked there in one capacity or another, as Melody Finnemore reports.

OregOn State Bar Bulletin • May 20144

May 2014 • OregOn State Bar Bulletin 5

iSto

ck

letters

HOW TO REACH US: In Oregon, call us toll-free at (800) 452-8260. In the Portland area and outside Oregon, our number is (503) 620-0222. The fax num-ber is (503) 684-1366. Email addresses and voice mail extension numbers for Bulletin staff are: Paul Nickell, editor, [email protected] (ext. 340); Julie Hankin, associate editor, [email protected] (ext. 391); and Leone Gholston, classified advertising and lawyer announcements, [email protected] (ext. 348).

ADVERTISING: For display advertising rates and information, please call our display advertising representative, Linda Pope, LLM Publications, (503) 445-2221; email: [email protected]; website: www.llm.com. For classified and lawyer announcement advertising rates and information, please call Leone Gholston at OSB, (503) 620-0222 or toll-free in Oregon, (800) 452-8260, ext. 348; email: [email protected].

I had lots of encouragement and inspi ration from lots of Stoel Rives folks while I toiled through college and law school. Afterwards, though, I didn’t reach for any big-firm gold ring. Instead, knowing that only having horses would make me happy, I headed to beautiful Eastern Or-egon, where land is cheap and horses are plentiful. I’ve had a solo practice for about 13 years now. No matter how stressed and tired I am and how challenged my budget, going home to my little horse ranch and nine equines on the Walla Walla River every day makes me feel rich and blessed.

Steve is right. Figure out what you need to be happy. That’s the first step to true wealth.

Kittee Custer, Milton-Freewater

Models for Good Writing

Regarding Megan McAlpin’s article, “Finding a Good Book” (The Legal Writ-er, April 2014), I was amused that any-body would suggest Ralph Waldo Emer-son’s Essays as helpful to legal writers.

Since Emerson hangs on a branch in my family tree, I have slogged through as much as I could of Uncle Ralph’s works. He refused to let either Henry David Tho-reau or Margaret Fuller edit his writing, so his flashes of literary brilliance lie bur-ied in opaque, meandering essays. Mark Twain objected that Emerson’s grammar “all at once arrests the flow of your sereni-ty for a moment, like gravel in the bread.”

Although Emerson is remembered as a Transcendentalist who published The Dial magazine, he was most famous in his day for his commanding presence as a public speaker; tall, with piercing eyes, and a dy-namic, pulpit-pounding style from having been a preacher.

On the other hand, I heartily agree

Inspiring Advice

Bravo for “How to Be Happy and Practice Law” (Parting Thoughts, April 2014). I’ve tried to practice much of this advice during my career, and it has served me well. Mr. Griffith’s essay made me smile and brought tears to my eyes — very inspiring and well written.

Celia Leber, Bend

The Steps to True Wealth

Right on, Steve! Your definition of “wealth” is a clear and accurate descrip-tion of my own philosophy, and I’ve never seen it expressed as well (Parting Thoughts, April 2014).

I knew when I was a hard-working le-gal secretary for many years at Stoel Rives (where I sometimes watched you race the clock) that being an associate or even a partner at fill-in-the blank law firm was no guarantee of either wealth or happiness.

that Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is must reading. For trial attorneys, Gregory Peck’s courtroom scenes in the film ver-sion are also mandatory. And journalists who instantly reveal the “who, what, where, when and why” of a story are ex-cellent models for succinct writing.

Constance Emerson Crooker, Portland

Wrong Alphabet

With reference to the article by James Hargreaves about courts in the post-So-viet era (“Becoming An Effective Brance of Government,” April 2014), I’m sure it is not Mr. Hargreaves’ doing, but your ar-ticle title is disrespectful in its deliberately incorrect use of letters from the Cyrillic alphabet. This kind of misuse of Cyrillic letters serves to mock or diminish those languages using the Cyrillic alphabet, when Cyrillic letters like “ya” are used as a backwards R, “i” as a backwards N, etc. It suggests a kind of U.S. cultural superi-ority, bordering on racism. More suitable for a high school publication, this kind of mockery is about on a par with, say, an article about Chinese legal practices en-titled “Raw in China.”

I believe you owe your Russian speak-ers an apology.

Geoff Cooper, Tigard

We Love Letters

The Bulletin welcomes letters. In gen-eral, letters should pertain to recent ar-ticles, columns or other letters and should be limited to 250 words.

Send letters to: Editor, OSB Bulletin, P.O. Box 231935, Tigard, OR 97281.


May 2014

Editor

Paul Nickell

Associate Editor

Julie A. Hankin

Art Director Sunny Chao

OSB Officers

President

Tom Kranovich, Lake Oswego

Vice Presidents

Patrick Ehlers, PortlandHunter Emerick, Salem

Matthew Kehoe, Hillsboro

President-Elect

Richard Spier, Portland

Board of Governors

Jenifer S. Billman, SalemJames C. Chaney, EugeneR. Ray Heysell, Medford

Theresa M. Kohlhoff, PortlandJohnathan E. Mansfield, Portland

Caitlin Mitchel-Markley, HillsboroAudrey T. Matsumonji, Gresham

Travis S. Prestwich, SalemJoshua L. Ross, Portland

Richard G. Spier, PortlandSimon Whang, Portland

Charles A. Wilhoite, PortlandTimothy L. Williams, BendElisabeth Zinser, Ashland

Executive Director Sylvia Stevens

Communications Director M. Kay Pulju

Copyright © 2014 the Oregon State Bar. All rights reserved. Requests to reprint

materials must be in writing. The Bulletin is printed on recycled/recyclable paper.

Quotable

“With identifying potential cases. The next step is to find out if people have been convicted who should not have been. The Innocence Project is not limited to capital cases or life-sentence cases. There are people who are serving a 10-year sentence and didn’t do it. And how do you prove it? How do you find that person and prove it? Those are our challenges.”

— Steven Wax, identifying the first steps to be taken when he joins the newly formed Oregon Innocence Project as its director later this year. Wax is stepping down after 31 years as the founding director of the federal public defender’s office in Portland.

Source: Willamette Week, at www.wweek.com/portland/article-22389-hotseat_ steven_wax.html

of the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2012, and elected for a full term in November of that year. The 1st Congres-sional District of Oregon, which she rep-resents, comprises the Northwest portion of the state.

The commencement exercises will take place beginning at 1 p.m., Saturday,

May 17, at the Hult Center for the Per-forming Arts in downtown Eugene. Ore-gon Law also will be recognizing the Hon. John V. Acosta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and late dean emeritus Eugene Scoles with the school’s Meritorious Service Award during the day’s exercises.


National borders around the world are fading as our economies, cul-tures and environments become

increasingly integrated and interdepen-dent. As a result, lawyers cannot always as-sume that their practices will be contained by national borders. Given Oregon’s loca-tion on the Pacific Rim, Oregon lawyers in particular may be more likely to find them-selves representing clients with interests, connections and needs that extend beyond national boundaries and crossing paths with foreign lawyers seeking to represent their clients’ interests in the United States.

Data recently compiled by the Busi-ness Roundtable shows the increasing im-portance of international trade to Oregon. International trade — exports and imports — supports nearly 490,000 Oregon jobs. Oregon exports tens of billions of dollars in goods and services annually. Customers in 203 countries around the world buy Or-egon-grown and manufactured goods and

By Helen HierschbielWhat’s GATS Got to Do With It?International Trade in Legal Services

bar Counsel

iSto

ck

services. Foreign-owned companies invest in Oregon and employ more than 40,000 Oregonians. Free trade agreements in par-ticular have led to rapid export growth to partner countries. See www.brt.org/trade.

While many lawyers may be familiar with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and their application to legal services, they may not know that the United States has nego-tiated 15 other international trade agree-ments that also apply to legal services. In her article, From GATS to APEC: The Im-pact of Trade Agreements on Legal Services, 43 Akron L Rev 875, 878 (2010), Penn State Dickinson School of Law Prof. Lau-rel S. Terry suggests that the routine inclu-sion of legal services in U.S. international trade agreements may be due to the sig-nificant role that such services play in the U.S. economy. She cites a 2009 U.S. In-ternational Trade Commission report that “described U.S. legal services as ‘very com-petitive in the global market,’ noting that they accounted for 54 percent of global revenue in 2007 and comprised 75 of the top 100 global firms ranked by revenue.” Id. at 880-881. Moreover, legal services fa-cilitate other trade by, among other things, providing support for commercial transac-tions and buyer/seller relationships. Id. at 881.

But what do these trade agreements have to do with lawyer regulation? These treaties contain a common clause requiring that parties to the treaty consider establish-ing “any necessary disciplines” to ensure that domestic regulation measures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade. While GATS does not override the states’ author-ity to regulate the practice of law within its borders, under the federal enabling leg-islation, the federal government arguably

could compel the states to change. Id. at 916-917. Thus, there is general consensus that reviewing regulations relating to the practice of law for “unnecessary barriers to trade” is a prudent undertaking.

To that end, in June 2013, the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors appointed a task force to study the impact of globaliza-tion, cross-border practice and lawyer mo-bility as it relates to international trade. The mission of the task force is to:

study the impact of international developments on the legal pro-fession including, but not lim-ited to, the effect of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), oth-er free trade agreements having an impact on delivery of legal services, changes in the regulation of the le-gal profession in foreign countries that may have local impact, and all other events affecting the de-livery of legal services across inter-national borders. It shall consider these matters from the perspective of both outbound legal services delivered in foreign countries by member lawyers and inbound de-livery of legal services in this state by foreign lawyers.During its meetings, the task force

identified the following six areas of prac-tice as potentially being impacted by the globalization of legal services: temporary transactional practice by foreign-licensed lawyers; foreign-licensed in-house coun-sel; permanent practice by foreign-licensed lawyers on their home country laws (e.g., foreign legal consultants); temporary in-court appearances by foreign-licensed lawyers (e.g., pro hac vice admission); full licensure of foreign-licensed lawyers in Or-


egon, and Oregon lawyers providing legal services in foreign jurisdictions.

With those areas of practice in mind, the task force has developed the following proposals for consideration by the OSB Board of Governors. Prior to making its recommendations, however, the task force would like to hear comments from the membership.

Temporary Transactional Practice by Foreign-licensed Lawyers

Oregon RPC 5.5(c) allows a lawyer ad-mitted in another United States jurisdic-tion to provide transactional legal services on a temporary basis in Oregon if they are 1) undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdic-tion and who actively participates in the matter; 2) arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a juris-diction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice, or; 3) provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission. This provi-sion is more commonly known as the “fly in, fly out” provision or “FIFO” rule.

Notably, Oregon’s FIFO rule does not allow lawyers who are licensed only in a foreign jurisdiction to provide temporary transactional legal services to their clients in Oregon. The task force believes this bar-rier to the delivery of legal services across international borders is unnecessary. The task force proposes to amend RPC 5.5(c) to remove the requirement that the lawyer be admitted in another United States juris-diction. The rule would read as follows: “A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspend-ed from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction ….”

Oregon would not be the first state to contemplate such a change. Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Geor-gia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vir-ginia and Washington have amended their FIFO rules to allow the temporary practice by foreign lawyers within their jurisdic-tions. In addition, ABA Model Rule 5.5(d) provides for temporary transactional prac-tice by foreign lawyers, albeit only to their employers or organizational affiliates.

The driving theory behind allowing the provision of temporary legal services


by foreign lawyers is that it does not pose an unreasonable risk to the interests of the clients, the public or the courts. See ABA Model Rule Comment (5). The goals of consumer protection and integrity of the courts are protected when the provision of legal services is overseen by either an Oregon lawyer or by an employer. With respect to the last category of temporary practice — services that “arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice” in the lawyer’s home jurisdiction — law-yers are expected to be operating within their distinct area of expertise, interpret-ing the laws of their home jurisdiction or providing services to clients within their home jurisdiction. Again, under these cir-cumstances, the reasoning goes, client pro-tection goals are met.

Foreign-licensed In-house Counsel

Oregon Admission Rule 16.05 allows an attorney employed by a business entity that is authorized to do business in Oregon, who has been admitted to practice law in another state, federal territory or com-monwealth, or the District of Columbia, to become licensed as house counsel in Oregon under certain conditions. To apply for admission under this rule, the lawyer must: 1) graduate from an ABA approved law school or satisfy the requirements of Admission Rule 3.05; 2) pass a bar ex-amination in the jurisdiction in which the applicant is admitted to practice law; and 3) provide verification of employment as house counsel by a business entity autho-rized to do business in Oregon, and disclo-sure of the limitation of the lawyer’s license to that entity. In addition, the lawyer must take and pass the professional responsibil-ity exam and pass character and fitness requirements. Once admitted, the lawyer may provide legal services only for the business entity identified in the application or through a certified pro bono program.

This rule presents two significant bar-riers to foreign lawyers’ admission as house counsel. The first is that the lawyer must be admitted to practice law in at least one U.S. jurisdiction. A lawyer who is admitted only in a foreign jurisdiction is not eligible to apply for admission under this rule. Sec-ond, even foreign lawyers who are licensed in a U.S. jurisdiction must also either have graduated from an ABA approved law school or, if not, bear the burden of show-ing that: 1) the requirements for admission


to practice law in the foreign jurisdiction are substantially equivalent to Oregon’s; 2) the foreign jurisdiction in which the ap-plicant is licensed is one where the Com-mon Law of England exists as the basis of its jurisprudence; and 3) the foreign law school from which the applicant graduated is the “equivalent” to an ABA approved law school. See Oregon Supreme Court Admission Rule 3.05.

The task force believes these barriers to the provision of legal services by foreign lawyers in Oregon are unnecessary and therefore proposes to change the House Counsel Admission Rule to one similar to the rule adopted in Washington State. The first recommendation is to remove the requirement that a lawyer be licensed in a U.S. jurisdiction and allow lawyers who are only licensed in a foreign jurisdiction to apply for admission as house counsel. Second, the task force proposes eliminat-ing the requirement that the applicant have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school or otherwise satisfy the require-ments of Admission Rule 3.05. Instead, the foreign-licensed lawyer would have to show current good standing in all jurisdic-tions in which the attorney is admitted to practice law. Finally, the task force propos-es eliminating the requirement of passage of a bar exam, other than the professional responsibility exam.

Outbound Delivery of Legal Services by Oregon Lawyers

Oregon lawyers are increasingly called upon to handle matters for their clients that involve multiple jurisdictions, some of which may be overseas. These lawyers face difficult choice of law questions when confronting ethics issues, particular those involving conflicts of interest. Oregon RPC 8.5 governs the disciplinary authority of the Oregon Supreme Court over lawyers involved in a multijurisdictional practice. Under RPC 8.5(a), Oregon has disciplin-ary authority over: 1) a lawyer admitted to practice in Oregon, regardless of where the conduct occurs; and 2) a lawyer not admit-ted to practice in Oregon, if the lawyer provides or offers to provide legal services in Oregon. Oregon RPC 8.5(b) sets forth what professional responsibility law should be applied to the lawyer in question. When the conduct occurs before a tribunal, “the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribu-nal sits” govern the lawyer’s conduct. This

means that a lawyer practicing before a tri-bunal in a jurisdiction outside of Oregon should become familiar with the rules of professional conduct for the outside juris-diction.

For conduct that is not in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, RPC 8.5(b)(2) provides that 1) the rule of the jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred will apply, unless 2) the lawyer’s conduct has its “predominant effect” in a different jurisdiction. Determining where a lawyer’s conduct has its “predominant effect” is particularly challenging for the lawyer with a multijurisdictional practice. In order to make this assessment some-what easier, the task force recommends adopting a formal ethics opinion that would essentially adopt the solution pro-posed by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, which was to add commentary to the ABA Model Rule 8.5 indicating that in assessing a lawyer’s reasonable belief as to the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct, a written agreement regarding the locus of predominant effect (obtained with the client’s informed consent) may be considered, but only for conflict of interest purposes. Because Oregon does not have commentary for its rules of professional conduct, adoption of a formal ethics opin-ion is recommended instead.

What Do You Think?

At this juncture, the task force does not have any proposals for substantive changes to the rules relating to pro hac vice admission, full licensure of foreign lawyers in Oregon, or the practice of foreign legal consultants. However, it will recommend that the Board of Governors continue to monitor these issues by, among other things, collecting data on how often for-eign lawyers use or seek to use these av-enues to engage in the practice of law in Oregon. For now, however, the task force seeks your input. What is your experience with the “international trade in legal ser-vices?” What do you think of the changes proposed by the task force? Let me know by email at [email protected].

Helen Hierschbiel is general counsel for the Oregon State Bar. She can be reached at (503) 620-0222, or toll-free in Oregon at (800) 452-8260, ext. 361, or by email at [email protected].


One of the basic canons of the Plain English movement is that lawyers should write as they

speak. The movement’s proponents sug-gest that lawyers tend to bog down legal writing with technical jargon and legalese that lay clients find inaccessible. Accord-ing to this theory, we wouldn’t say here-tofore in a conversation, so we shouldn’t write it either.

I buy the basic premise of the Plain English movement. Lawyers sometimes write in obtuse terms. That’s understand-able. Law students spend three years de-coding labyrinthine judicial opinions and statutes. Those sources are filled with ar-chaic language. Then once out of school, consistency and efficiency compel law-yers to replicate the bad writing habits in decades-old forms of contracts and plead-ings. Whether consciously or not, the grandiose language of our legal predeces-sors seeps in and clouds today’s communi-cation. That’s not good. And I get that.

iSto

ck

By Elizabeth Ruiz FrostPlainish EnglishWrite As You Speak, Unless…

the legal writer

Here’s the catch: spoken English ain’t so good these days, so should we really write as we speak? Sometimes we speak too casually or in cliché. Therefore, the Plain English rule might need some refin-ing. I propose a middle ground: let’s write as we speak, kind of. We can call it Plain-ish English.

Cliché Writing

As a practicing lawyer, I don’t recall writing or receiving any emails from other lawyers loaded with high-fallutin’ jargon like whereinbefore and thusly. But I often received emails that looked something like this:

There’s a lot of hair on this transac-tion, but at the end of the day, this could be a game-changer for us. If we’re going to boil this sea, we’ll have to ratchet up and plough through. I’m going to take a deep dive on this issue, so put a pin in that for now until I can circle back. When we talk, I’ll give you the 30,000-foot view from our side. Then your team can drill down internally and revert back. After that, I hope we can start moving forward on some of the bigger action items. In the meantime, I’m going to be out of pocket so why don’t you bird-dog the financials? I’ll ping you when pencils are up for the rest of your team.

What?!So maybe that’s an exaggeration, but

you get the point. If it isn’t appropri-ate to ask a client to “please execute the hereinbefore referenced document at-tached hereto” (and it shouldn’t be), or to instruct her to “pls sign + return, thx” (and it definitely isn’t), then we shouldn’t request that our reader “revert back” ei-ther. Revert back? Revert back to what, exactly? Australopithecus? That hollow

“business speak” doesn’t mean anything!I’ll concede that this particular lin-

guistic scourge seems to have infected only a couple channels of communica-tion. I doubt lawyers are incorporating cliché business speak into briefs to the court. I haven’t seen this yet: “The plain-tiff will circle back with the Court in 30 days.” And I suspect no lawyer has drafted a trust requiring a trustee to “bird-dog” bank accounts. And okay, cliché doesn’t pose the same risk of alienating the pub-lic that legal jargon does. But cliché nev-ertheless pervades conference calls and email. And because email has become lawyers’ primary method of communicat-ing with each other and clients, we should care how it sounds.

As a writing tool, cliché can have an undesirable effect on a writer’s audience. First, cliché may simply cause a reader’s eyes to roll. The style is simple and pre-dictable. As conversations and emails seem to merge into one incomprehensible block of sameness filled with the same tired expressions, the audience might stop paying attention. Second, cliché is impre-cise. Most of the time, a writer will com-municate more effectively by writing what she means than by couching her meaning in an idiom. Finally, cliché can seem in-appropriately homespun. When I read an email like the one above, I picture Fog-horn Leghorn pecking at the keyboard. While that is an adorable image, it’s not a particularly professional one. (But what if he’s wearing a suit?)

Of course, I am not the first to suggest that cliché is de rigueur. Long before me, George Orwell railed against cliché. In his 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Lan-guage,” Orwell advised writers to “never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech that you are used to seeing.” That


may seem like easy talk for a journalist who devoted his life to crafting language, but it’s a worthy goal for lawyers nonethe-less.

Writing in Colloquialisms

Colloquial word choice presents an-other problem in professional writing. We might use words and expressions in everyday conversation that we shouldn’t choose for legal writing. Sometimes those words are too casual. So once again, write as you speak, except when you speak in ways that you shouldn’t write. Right?

Here is an example of a colloquial-ism in legal writing. I recently read an emotional distress memo that read, “The plaintiff freaks out every time she hears screeching brakes.” We probably under-stand what the writer meant, but “freaks out” isn’t as appropriate in legal writing as something like “suffers panic attacks.” Perhaps this example is too stark. How about drunk versus intoxicated? Or kid versus child? Or cop versus police offi-cer? No one will mistake your meaning in these examples, but they seem inappropri-ately casual for legal writing.

Striking the balance between plain English that’s accessible for lay people and language that’s overly casual and unprofessional can be difficult. Writ-ers may not always know when a word crosses the line to become inappropri-ately colloquial. I wish there were a good test. Let me offer an imperfect one: could the term or phrase easily follow or pre-cede the word “dude” (e.g., “dude, the plaintiff freaks out every time she hears screeching brakes” and “the cop seized his license, dude”)? If so, choose a less colloquial word.

Conclusion

Expressing oneself through cliché and colloquial terms is easy but lazy. Writ-ing in cliché and colloquialisms is the linguistic equivalent to text message ab-breviations. “Put a pin in it” reads like a J. “Freaks out” is like “ROFL.” All these expressions are autotext; no thought goes into them. Plain English shouldn’t be arti-ficially fancy, but it can still be thoughtful and proper.

Elizabeth Ruiz Frost teaches legal re-search and writing and other courses at the University of Oregon School of Law.


Valentine’s Day, which is also the anniversary of Oregon’s statehood, seemed the perfect day to kick off the 100th an-niversary celebration of the Oregon Supreme Court build-ing, and not just because the state’s highest court took the

bench there for the first time on Feb. 14, 1914. The crown jewel of Sa-lem’s Capitol Mall has inspired much respect and affection over the last century because of its rich history, elegant architecture and grand status as Oregon’s oldest state government building.

The Oregon Supreme Court settled into its permanent home after operating in five different locations, including the capitol building, be-tween 1852 and 1914. Sen. John A. Carson, the grandfather of retired Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson Jr., introduced a bill in 1911 that sought funding to add a wing to the capitol for the state supreme court.

GOLDEN CENTURyOregon Supreme Court Building’s 100th anniversary gives rise to Myriad Memories and a Few Surprises By Melody Finnemore

APh

otog

raph

cou

rtes

y of

the

Ore

gon

Law

Lib

rary

.


“Fortunately, the bill was amended to include a new build-ing for us because in April of 1935 the capitol burned down and would have taken the Oregon Supreme Court with it, I’m sure,” Carson says.

Initially, the new building also housed the state of Oregon law library, the attorney general’s office, and the state’s print-ing plant. Today the law library, which in 2002 celebrated the completion of a multi-year renovation, draws multitudes to the second floor. The Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals share the third-floor courtroom that is beloved for its signature stained-glass ceiling, yellow silk wallpaper and intimate atmosphere. The venerable building has generated an array of memories — mostly fond, but a few fearful — for people who have worked there in one capacity or another. Many offered to share their thoughts about the building during the anniversary celebration, which included Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum leading attendees in singing “Happy Birthday” to the building, and during interviews after the event.

First ImpressionsOne of Oregon’s newest appellate judges actually began work-

ing in the supreme court building more than 30 years ago. Court of Appeals Judge Joel DeVore clerked for Judge Tom Young in 1982, which also involved occasionally serving as a bailiff. De-Vore was immediately impressed, and continues to be, by the courtroom’s architecture and space.

“That space is so nice because it’s dignified, but on a human scale. You step in and there are sofa-type seats all around the edge of the room for people to sit on. You stand at the podium to answer the judges’ questions, and it’s sobering but not overpower-ing. It’s a wonderful design for appellate conversations,” he says.

The infamous stained-glass ceiling, beautiful in itself, also is praised for the reflections it creates on the glass-topped tables where the attorneys sit.

“It’s sometimes distracting to be an advocate there because you’re looking down at your notes and trying not to get distracted by people arguing around you, and then you see the reflection and think, ‘Oh my goodness, this is really lovely,’ ” DeVore says. “That gives you pause in a moment of tension to just notice the space around you, and that is so important.”

Oregon Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rick Haselton relied on that reflection many times to calm him while arguing before the court during the 1980s.

“I was petrified and I would get sick to my stomach before every oral argument. Even driving by Salem to visit my mom in Albany, I would get that feeling because it was so ingrained,” he says. “That wonderful pool of color that is reflected back at you is one of the things that would make me feel happy and help me settle down because it’s so beautiful. Now when kids come to tour the building I show it to them, and they just get it.”

Now, sitting on the other side of the bench, Haselton admires the sense of warmth and intimacy created by the yellow silk wall-paper, lighting, size and arrangement. “We want oral arguments to be conversations and not stilted, and the room’s environment really lends to that,” he says.

For Supreme Court Justice Virginia Linder, it was more of a who than a what that made the greatest first impression.

“I remember walking in and Betty Roberts was on the bench. It was the first woman judge I had ever seen and that made all the difference. Having her on the bench gave me the legitimacy to be there,” she says. “That was one of the more life-shaping mo-ments for me.”

State Law Librarian Cathryn Bowie moved to Salem from Texas in December 2003 to take over when Joe Stephens retired. She arrived in the midst of a “snowpocalypse.”

“I was determined to get to work as I had promised. I showed up and no one else did, for about a week. It was quite a first ex-perience,” she says. “No one was here so I went exploring. The lighting wasn’t great and the attic was a little dark, so it was a little like being in a haunted mansion.”

Favorite FeaturesThe library is a personal favorite for Court of Appeals Judge

Erin Lagesen, who in 1998 was a law clerk at the Oregon Depart-ment of Justice and would come to the library to do research.

“It was fantastic. You could go into the library and see the supreme court justices and the appeals court judges. For a law student, it was pretty amazing that you could walk in and be sur-rounded by the members of your appellate bench and they would actually talk to you,” she says.

Lagesen also appreciates the building’s accessibility, even with stricter security measures in place than when she was a clerk.

“The public can come in and see the building itself, observe the proceedings and go into the library. It’s a great place to read if you have some downtime,” she says. “More people should take advantage of the fact that it’s here and use it.”

Court of Appeals Judge Robert Wollheim has an affinity for the non-public elevator the judges use.

“It’s this tiny elevator, and it has one of the old-fashioned style gates across it once you get in. It’s automatic in the sense that you push the buttons, but it looks like the ancient building elevators,” he says. “I’m a pretty good-sized guy and the judges joke about whether we’re going to exceed the weight limit. It’s never happened.”

“There are times when it doesn’t stop evenly with the floor when you get off, so you have to be somewhat careful,” Wollheim adds.

His colleague, Judge James Egan, first experienced the build-ing as a teenager because his father was a page who gave tours there. He has long loved the law library as well as the famed wooden drawer in the chief justice’s position on the bench, where generations of judges and staff have signed their names.

“Having been a juvenile delinquent who spent years defac-ing public property either with a pen or toilet paper, I just love that nearly every judge has signed their name in the drawer,” says Egan, a former extern for Carson. (Carson, by his own admission, so far has not signed the drawer because as a youngster he was so in-grained against the perils of defacing public property.)

Linder says she has been fortunate to view the building from several perspectives, from law student observing the proceedings to lawyer arguing at the podium to justice on the bench. Different aspects of the building have struck her at different times along that spectrum, and she has taken many photos over the years that

A Golden Century


capture those moments. As an attorney, it was the colored glass iridescence in the courtroom, and now it is the rich mahogany wood and brass registers in the building.

She also experienced the building in a new way while teach-ing a law course at Willamette University. She received per-mission to use the courtroom after hours to host students who were presenting briefs and oral arguments for their final exam. The course was held in the fall, so the courtroom was dark when Linder arrived. As she searched for the right lights to turn on, she discovered the room’s globe lights.

“It provided the most romantic image of the courtroom I had ever seen, and it was just totally charming,” she says, adding she often chooses that lighting when holding evening ceremonies to swear in new lawyers.

The welcoming feeling of the courtroom, and of the judges who work there, are Erika Hadlock’s favorite feature. Now an ap-peals court judge herself, Hadlock remembers arguing before the court for her first time in 1995 and how her connection with the courtroom has grown since then.

“The courtroom has always felt like home to me. I love the warmth of it and how the sunshine comes through and moves across the room,” she says. “But a lot of why I felt that room was home was I felt the judges on both courts did such a good job of making practitioners feel welcome in the room. This is a place where we were all coming together to figure out the right answers to problems.”

Good Stewards of HistoryRetired Chief Justice Edwin Peterson admits that he was less

enthralled with the building during his first encounter than oth-ers have been. In September 1957, he was one of many recent

law school grads who went to the building to find out if they had passed the bar exam by looking at a list posted to the courtroom door.

“I was euphoric about being admitted to the practice of law, so I didn’t pay a hell of a lot of attention to the building,” he says.

He did come to appreciate its attributes while working there for many years and says the signed drawer was a favorite feature. As chief justice, Peterson was charged with overseeing the court-room’s remodel, which included the wallpaper and carpeting that decorate it now, and the committee that made the choices.

“I appointed [retired Justice] Hans Linde to select the carpet and he did. Frankly, I think the carpet is beautiful and it’s well over 25 years old now. But I tell you one thing: Never pick a committee of judges to pick carpet or wallpaper,” Peterson says.

Chief Justice Thomas Balmer says he is grateful previous ef-forts to build a new supreme court building failed. He has an ar-ticle from the Oregon Statesman dated May 27, 1950, in which former Chief Justice Hall Lusk told the state capitol planning commission that “the present supreme court structure is out-moded and requires extensive repairs.” Lusk requested that a new building be constructed.

“Fortunately nothing happened, and starting in the 1970s people paid more attention to beautiful older buildings,” Balm-er says, noting renovations have repaired peeling paint, stained carpets and water-damaged plaster. The stained-glass canopy has been cleaned, and florescent tube lighting in the judges’ cham-bers was replaced with historically appropriate light fixtures.

“For many years, I had what was originally the chief justice’s office, which is huge with extensive built-in book cases, some with original glass doors, and handsome plaster rosettes, cornices and ceiling details,” Balmer explains. “I now have what was origi-

Over the last century, the Oregon Supreme Court building has been admired for its architecture, interior design and its accessbility to the public.

A Golden CenturyPh

otog

raph

s cou

rtes

y of

the

Ore

gon

Law

Lib

rary

.


nally the clerk’s office in the northwest corner, which is better designed for meeting visitors and has an adjacent conference room.”

Balmer feels privileged to play a role in the building’s history while recognizing that he and others who work in it are “tempo-rary holders of a trust from the citizens of Oregon.”

“We follow in the footsteps of some great and some average judges, we do the best we can to resolve the disputes that our society brings to us, and to pass on these institutions to our suc-cessors — hopefully in a little better shape (or at least not worse) than they were when we took them over,” he says. “It is sobering to think that in this courtroom there have been arguments over life and death, ownership of Oregon’s beaches, the right to free speech, the right of citizens born in Japan to own property — and the decisions coming out of the supreme court have resolved each of those disputes.”

Appellate Commissioner Jim Nass served as the appellate court administrator during the library’s remodel, which occurred soon after the attic was renovated.

“The library used to be pretty dark, so the remodel was really significant and it’s just a wonderful place to be now. Now it has wifi, Internet stations at the work carrels, and it’s a brighter and much more enjoyable place to do legal research,” he says. “Before its renovation, the attic made the library look like an oasis. It was this dark, dingy place and they did a remarkable job of cleaning it up, putting in shelving and getting rid of some trash that had accumulated over the years.”

Nass says the basement also was an unpleasant place before a remodel created office space, a room to store closed files and an improved work area for staff who handle the mail.

James Comstock, business projects manager for the state’s business and fiscal services division, supervises the building’s maintenance staff and the contractors who are hired to work on it. Among the building’s idiosyncrasies, it has four HVAC sys-tems and it can be a challenge to cool it during the summer and heat it during the winter. And, operating a historic structure dur-ing daily use is often a fine balancing act.

“We want to find ways to keep the building going without changing it much. We want it to be safe and usable. The building is not a museum piece that sits on a shelf — we want people to use it. At the same time we want to preserve it,” Comstock says.

Truths and LegendsNo old building would be complete without a few urban leg-

ends. There apparently are no ghosts in the supreme court build-ing, except maybe a deceased elevator operator who hangs out once in a while. And the underground tunnel that leads to the Department of Justice is used without spooky incident by judges and other staff who want to avoid getting soaked during rain-storms.

However, there are plenty of true stories that raise the hair on the back of one’s neck, such as the attorney (who shall remain unnamed) who answered a call on his cell phone while arguing before the supreme court. The story goes that the attorney not only answered the first call without apologizing to the court, but answered a second call as well. He received a colorful reproach from the bench.

In her remarks during the anniversary celebration, Rosenblum shared tales of attorneys lying in the center of the courtroom floor — thankfully, while court was not in session — to get a better

The courtroom (right) and library (left) are often praised for their welcoming feel and sense of intimacy.

A Golden Century

Phot

ogra

phs c

ourt

esy

of th

e O

rego

n La

w L

ibra

ry.


view of the stained-glass canopy. Others have attempted to dress in attire that matched the courtroom carpet’s color scheme.

Rosenblum, who served on the Oregon Court of Appeals, played a role in the building’s history when she advocated that a sign be placed in front of the building that lets people know the appeals court and the state’s law library are housed in the building.

“This is a building for the people, and they should know what goes on here even if they never set foot inside the building,” she said during the celebration.

Wollheim recalls a winter storm that uprooted trees near the building. “No one got hurt, but one of the trees totaled Chief Justice [Paul] DeMuniz’s car,” he says.

Carson remembers the large crowds that came to hear the case involving Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his followers. “The pub-lic is invited to hear oral arguments, though that doesn’t happen often and now the sessions can be streamed,” he says. “Whenever she (spokeswoman Ma Anand Sheela) was coming to town, they would set up chairs in the lobby and open areas and people would watch the proceedings.”

Somewhat surprisingly, the Oregon Supreme Court building has been a romantic spot for some. During the anniversary cele-bration, Senate President Peter Courtney shared that he brought his wife, Margie, to the building for their first date. He took her up on the roof so they could see the city lights. (Comstock says Courtney’s admission allows him to confess that he, too, took his wife up to the roof during their first date. He also invited her to sit in the chief justice’s chair.)

Bowie’s romantic link to the building was shared by the entire supreme court bench, speaking on behalf of her husband-to-be, Ken Henry. Henry, a longtime state trooper who had worked at the capitol and governor’s mansion for many years, collaborated with Carson on a wedding proposal. All of the justices were gath-ered for a seemingly routine group photo and, with Bowie ready to take the picture, they unfurled a banner that said, “Will You Marry Me?”

“I turned around and there was my future husband. I had the presence of mind to snap that picture of all the justices holding the banner,” she says. “Wally Carson married us in the courtroom in between arguments.”

Less romantic but heartwarming nonetheless, Judy Giers re-members a special Halloween she shared as a clerk in the supreme court building.

“We had a Halloween pumpkin carving contest to carve a likeness of ‘your’ judge, and the contest judging was held in the courtroom with the pumpkins placed at our judges’ usual spots,” says Giers, of counsel with Eugene’s Gaydos, Churnside & Balthrop and former chair of the Oregon State Bar Appellate Practice Section.

Kevin Hylton, an attorney and law clerk with the Oregon Supreme Court, enjoys the story of the William Paine Lord chest near the library. Lord was one of only three supreme court justices who went on to serve as the state’s governor.

“Apparently when Lord was governor, he got a letter from an inmate from the penitentiary. In the letter, the inmate said he was going to be released soon but he had spent most of his adult


life in prison and had no family and nowhere to go. He asked to stay in prison and Lord agreed,” Hylton says, adding the grateful inmate handcrafted the ornate wooden chest as a thank-you gift.

Another well-told story about the building involves a con-tractor who was hired to repair a leak in the stained-glass canopy. In the process, he carelessly expectorated tobacco juice on the glass, a blotchy blasphemy that was quickly noticed by the bench.

“I guess an angry call took place and shortly after that, the building left the state department of administrative service’s control and was handed over to the judicial department,” Hylton says.

Looking aheadAs the Supreme Court building undergoes an exterior reno-

vation of its terra cotta covering, which is cracking, a handful of judges who work in the building ruminated on and celebrated its future.

Chief Judge Haselton says a fairly recent image sticks with him as he contemplates the strides the courts have made and the accomplishments that lie ahead.

“During Judge DeVore’s investiture back in January, it was the first time all 13 of us were together on the bench. I was sit-ting in the middle chair with Judge DeVore next to me and, as I spanned from left to right, it was wonderful, breathtaking and very emotional for me,” he says. “We’re now up to five women, and the diversity and the youth was very moving.”

Supreme Court Justice Linder notes that despite efforts to re-tire the building as a historical monument and construct a new one, it forges on as a working courtroom.

“For me, one of the real treasures is to spend my entire career with this courtroom in service,” she says. “It does seem so appro-priate to be able to walk around this building and know that it has that kind of institutional durability that exceeds the people in it. We’re all here for whatever time we’re here, but this building and what it symbolizes goes on just like the law does.”

Retired Chief Justice Carson says that he is impacted by how technology is changing the law and how that, in turn, impacts the building.

“The practice of law is changing and with it will change the practice of being a judge, to some degree. Our work is changing and becoming more mobile, which means a building becomes less important except for oral arguments,” he says.

And Oregon Court of Appeals Court Judge DeVore says he looks forward to future generations of legal professionals experi-encing all the history that the building has to offer.

“I imagine the next hundred years and new generations of young lawyers standing in the same courtroom and enjoying that same sense of reverence and welcoming that courtroom pro-vides,” he says. “It’s wonderful to have the confidence that it will go forward for the next hundred years.”

Melody Finnemore is a Portland-area freelance writer and frequent contributor to the Bulletin. She can be reached at precisionpdx @comcast.net.


and university maintenance staff were able to get it going, much to the relief and joy of everyone.

“This was as much an adventure for the tribes as it was for us,” Weaver says. “They were very anxious to see this proj-ect come to fruition — not just for the electricity and clean water — but for the lessons learned. They were quick learners and hard workers. I felt an instant bond with all the people I worked with.”

During those several weeks in Zambia, Weaver dug a seemingly endless series of ditches and utilized some basic construc-tion skills he had acquired on jobs dur-ing high school and college. At night he enjoyed books he had brought along and, with electricity in short supply, was usual-ly fast asleep on a cot covered by mosquito netting shortly after dark.

Chirundu, the village where Weaver primarily worked, is located at Zambia’s border with Zimbabwe and near a major bridge that crosses the Zambezi River. The bridge brings a few benefits to the vil-lage, but it also carries a steady stream of

long-haul truck drivers who contribute to a significant prostitution problem.

Zambian tribal society is very patri-archal, and women are subordinated to the interests of their fathers, husbands and other men, Weaver says. Children are raised by extended families and often have more than one adult acting as their father.

“There is an AIDS epidemic in Zam-bia, thanks in part to impediments in the culture. Men don’t wear condoms and witch doctors tell women they won’t contract AIDS,” he says. “Education and time may change that, but it’s going to be a long haul.”

The nearby parish houses an orphan-age that is filled with children, and a hos-pital overburdened with patients suffering from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Weaver says an Italian nun who runs the hospital explained that some of her patients are 12- and 13-year-old girls with STDs that are difficult to treat.

In addition, Zambia is extremely im-poverished and half of its population is

younger than 18, youth with few pros-pects for escaping poverty. “The people we worked with were mostly young men, and they were smart, hardworking and anxious to learn,” Weaver says. “Despite what we would regard as suffering and de-privation, most appeared to be at peace with their lives.”

The experience taught him to see his own everyday circumstances in a new light.

“If anyone ever hears me say, ‘Gee, I really wish I had this or that other thing,’ I want them to strike me dead,” Weaver says. “Life in most of Africa is primitive and little is required to navigate it.”

There were some welcome cultural encounters along the way, including a trip to Victoria Falls and a large folk festival that featured music, dancing and a host of dignitaries and tribal chiefs.

An overly starchy diet, as well as some chicken that gave new meaning to the term “free range,” left something to be de-sired, though it made Weaver appreciate unexpected delicacies even more.

“I wasn’t always sure what I was eating. I remember one day I got half an avocado and I thought I was in heaven,” he says.

After the Zambia project, Weaver took time for some additional travels that included actual beds, hot showers and other daily comforts. He helped a friend edit a book, and just generally enjoyed his self-imposed change of pace. When he returned to work in early 2013, he felt re-energized both personally and profes-sionally.

“I’ve been fortunate to be always among great lawyers and great people, and in my work I felt sometimes totally drained but never bored. I’ve been very fortunate in that regard,” he says. “But this is a very stressful profession. I did not realize how tired I was until I came to a complete stop. Once I reached that point, it was pretty clear what I needed to do.

“I feel like I was able to restore my mind, my body and my soul,” Weaver adds. “I love being a lawyer and I’m glad to be back. The whole key is balance. If we let it, the profession will consume us. This gave me a chance to rebalance.”

Melody Finnemore is a Portland-area freelance writer and frequent contribu-tor to the Bulletin. She can be reached at [email protected].

For its most recent Zambia water project, the Professionals Without Borders team from Seattle University designed a platform that floated on pontoons and was equipped with a water wheel, a generator attachable to a waterproof cable, and a PVC pipe coil. The device was designed to channel water from the river up a 70-foot embankment and also provide electricity for the village.


perspective,” she says, “if it’s nonsense, you just end up skimming over it.” When reading a transcript, Lloyd often encoun-ters a second problem: faulty memory. “If there has been too much back-and-forth between lawyers, of if the judge had to in-terrupt, or literally separate the litigants, what [the lawyer] thought he or she said on a topic often doesn’t make it into the transcript. Lawyers think they made the argument, but due to emotion, anxiety, or frustration, they’re wrong; it’s not there.” Grace under pressure and not letting it get personal lead to a better record and more effective advocacy.

How does one avoid descending into the tar pit of pettiness during the heat of battle? “I just roll with it,” says one vet-eran criminal defense attorney. “I go into every trial with one, maybe two, issues. These are the two main points that I want to make, that I want the jury to hear and consider. I don’t have 15 or 20; I have one or two. I’m not going to get into a spitting match with anyone.”

What if a prosecutor tries to drag him into an off-topic fight about an issue that is not on his list? “We’re both advocates,” he says. “I try to stick to my issues, not lose focus, and save any retort for my clos-ing argument.”

Two other areas of concern came up repeatedly during the informal poll of judges mentioned above – punctual-ity and preparedness. “Everyone is busy, particularly the lawyers that I see whose practices involve multiple counties,” says Judge Garcia. “Tardiness is never a prob-lem if the lawyer is able to let us know ahead of time. It becomes problematic, and possibly a reflection on that lawyer’s professionalism, if it’s habitual. It shows great disrespect toward the other partici-pants in the criminal justice process.”

Those words apply not only to court appearances, but also to business practices — like providing discovery. Every prac-ticing attorney has felt that he or she has been “sand-bagged” by receiving discov-ery material or learning of a new witness on the eve of trial. For the lawyer whose delivery of such documents or information was untimely, answers to the inevitable questions (i.e., When did you know about this? Did you alert your opposing counsel as soon as possible?) will either mitigate or exacerbate the situation. For the recipi-

ent, his or her reaction will do the same. In the heat of such an incident, Retired Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Michael Marcus once told an attorney in his courtroom that the lawyer was “so an-gry about the timing of this disclosure that you’re failing to see how much it could potentially benefit your case.”

Can judges, juries, witnesses, appel-late attorneys, discern when a lawyer is not as prepared as he or she should be for a hearing? “Every time,” replies Waller. “Preparedness is the cornerstone of pro-fessionalism.” In an arena defined by out-comes, the wise course of action, should a litigant feel unprepared, is to seek a delay — whether that means 15 minutes or 24 hours — to get ready. “Preparation shows that the matter is being taken se-riously,” says Multnomah County Cir-cuit Court Judge Stephen Bushong, who notes, “Your reputation is bigger than any one case.” If it means momentarily taking a tongue lashing from the bench in order to be ready to argue the issues, it is worth the price. Many agree few things make a worse impression on a jury than a lawyer who doesn’t know the case or seems to be learning on the fly. Jurors respect and respond to confidence and commitment to one’s case. That only comes with prep-aration.

Written communication is also an area that is ripe for important displays of professionalism. Examples ranging from trial memoranda to email messages are places where tone is important. Politeness helps keep the lines of communication open and avoids unnecessary conflict. In writing as in person, personality clashes often lead to wasted time.

Unnecessary hostile or aggressive lan-guage often serves as extra motivation (or provocation) for an opponent. In written work submitted to the court plain lan-guage keeps judges focused on the real is-sues in a case instead of creating the feel-ing of needing to spend time controlling the attorneys.

A relatively recent forum in which a criminal lawyer’s commitment to profes-sionalism may also be put to the test is his or her use of social media. It is axiomatic that lawyers will use social media for busi-ness and for pleasure. Yet there are also pitfalls. Does the content of someone’s Facebook post or tweet, even when broad-


Ore

gon

Stat

e B

ar

For many years, before it was fashion-able to have one, Clackamas Coun-ty Circuit Court Judge Dale Jacobs

was my mentor. While I could dedicate an entire article to the benefits of being his mentee I will limit myself to the one pearl of Dale’s wisdom that has been the most helpful to me: “When you meet a lawyer for the first time, you have a chance to make a new friend.”

Since taking office it has been my pleasure to attend, with OSB Executive Director Sylvia Stevens, almost weekly lunch meetings at different law firms. Luncheons between the bar’s executive director, the OSB president and Oregon law firms have been part of the executive director’s and the president’s job descrip-tion for decades. The purported purpose of these meetings is to build on prior re-lationships and continue the dialogue be-tween the board and our members. But, for me, they are much more.

Having been a member of the legal

Professionalism in the Digital Age

Building Bridges, Making Friends By Tom Kranovich

President’s message

community since 1979, when I started clerking for Judge Jacobs, it is unusual if I do not know at least one person at ev-ery luncheon that I attend. I use these relationships to “break the ice” with ev-eryone else. I enter the meeting knowing one to five people and leave knowing 10 to 20 more. I leave thankful for the inher-ent blessing that flows from the very old school ideas of personal contact and face to face interaction.

In 1964 I attended a high school as-sembly at which an “expert” told us that the efficiencies of automation would lead to more meaningful lives by making our jobs easier and providing us with increased leisure time. Alas, if it were only so. Au-tomation and online communication

make performing any given task quicker but there has been no increase in leisure time. Tasks that used to take two hours to complete now take less than one, leaving us with time to do two or more additional tasks. We now pack two to three times the work product into an eight to 10-hour day than we did 30 years ago.

The expectations placed on us are driven at the speed of email. It used to be that answering a letter within a few days or returning a phone call within 24 hours was acceptable. While it is not yet the norm, some people now become upset

if their email is not answered within an hour of it being sent. All of this makes me wonder, how do we build friendships in a digital world, and is there still a place for face-to-face interaction in the developing practice model?

We are still a small enough bar that our actions come back to visit us. I know that the harder I hit the “enter” key in sending an email the more I will later re-gret the tone of the message. Have oth-ers had this experience? Should I, we, reflect more before responding to letters, emails and phone calls? Should our model be such that the tone of our communi-cation moves the case forward without jeopardizing the friendships we are trying to establish or maintain? Do our actions

consistently build trust for future deal-ings? When possible do we offer a plau-sible “out” or face-saving option to our recipient?

The answers, of course, are introspec-tive. They lie more in the decisions we individually make and less on the rules we enact or the statements of practice that we endorse. Part of the OSB brand is our collective reputation for collegi-ality, but it will take more than decrees from the Board of Governors or the House of Delegates and more than presidential pontification for us to protect and nurture

Collegiality further requires that we take time to attend bar functions and events at the state, county, local and section levels. It calls for each of us to personally get involved and stay informed lest we become individually isolated and unaware.


that aspect of our brand. True collegial-ity requires individual commitment to personal, civilized communication within a framework, I believe, of making and/or maintaining friendships. Collegiality further requires that we take time to at-tend bar functions and events at the state, county, local and section levels. It calls for each of us to personally get involved and stay informed lest we become indi-vidually isolated and unaware.

Impersonal but efficient electronic communication, while a boon to the bot-tom line, is a threat to collegiality and an obstacle to face to face relationships. Skype and Facetime, or their ultimate successors, may be an improvement over potentially soulless email and telephone messages, but I doubt that they will ever offer the level of camaraderie found in a face-to-face encounter made with a smile and firm handshake. Is the digital age conducive to a culture of high collegial-ity without professional friendships? I fear that it is not but submit we can keep its negative side under control by making a cross-cultural commitment to civility, friendship and face-to-face interaction.

I would appreciate your ideas on the role of friendship and face-to-face com-munication in the rapidly changing practice of law. Please contact me via [email protected] or, if you are willing to have a broader audience, by sending your comment or inquiry to me via the Bulle-tin, which always appreciates letters to the editor on thoughtful matters. It’s a broad-er discussion I would like to have. Either way, I will either answer your inquiry or get it into the hands of someone who can.

Every inquiry you send, or thought you share, is a chance for me to make a new friend.

OSB President Tom Kranovich prac-tices law in Lake Oswego. Reach him at [email protected].


Oregon at 800-452-8260, ext. 426.

Professional Liability Fund CEO Position Available

The Professional Liability Fund is seeking a new chief executive officer with a desired start date of Aug. 1, 2014. As an independently managed subdivision of the Oregon State Bar, the PLF has a staff of 50 and annual budget of $28 million. Report-ing to the PLF’s board, the CEO provides strategic leadership and management for the PLF. Primary responsibilities include policy development, staffing, claims man-agement, budgeting, investments and cultivating relationships with the PLF’s stakeholders. Preference will be given to Oregon lawyers with management and litigation experience. Familiarity with the PLF and knowledge of casualty insurance is desirable, as is claims management and private practice experience.

The Professional Liability Fund offers excellent benefits, including participation in Oregon PERS. For a complete posi-tion profile and instructions on applying, visit the PLF website at www.osbplf.org/CEOsearch.

Public Members Sought for Board of Governors, Other Groups

The Oregon State Bar is recruiting non-lawyers — members of the public — to serve on various committees and boards. Public member opportunities for 2014 include one OSB Board of Gover-nors position and several openings on committees, disciplinary process boards and the bar’s House of Delegates.

If you know someone who may be interested in serving as a public member on one of these groups, please encour-age them to apply. Applications are due on Thursday, July 3, and are available on the bar’s website at www.tinyurl.com/ OSB2014PublicMemberApp.

Annual Awards Nominations Due July 15

The bar is currently accepting nomi-nations for the annual awards to honor our most outstanding lawyers, judges and citizens. The Oregon Bench & Bar Com-mission on Professionalism is also accept-ing nominations for its Edwin J. Peterson Professionalism Award. The deadline for all nominations is 5 p.m., Tuesday, July 15.


The individual awards and their nomi-nation criteria, forms and other informa-tion can be found at www.osbar.org. For additional information please contact Kay Pulju, OSB Communications Department, at (503) 620-0222 ext. 402, (800) 452-8260 ext. 402, or e-mail [email protected].

Solomon Inn of Court Offers New Blackman Scholarship

In memory of the late Marc Black-man, long-time member and former presi-dent of the Gus J. Solomon Inn of Court, the organization has created a scholarship for a free year’s membership, available to bar members who have demonstrated commitment to public service in the prac-tice of law and whose means are such that paying regular dues would be difficult. An application form with more informa-tion can be downloaded from www.gusj solomoninnofcourt.org/.

The Gus J. Solomon Inn of Court promotes excellence and professionalism in legal advocacy. Comprised of judges, lawyers, legal educators, and law students, the organization seeks, through discus-sion, analysis, and education, to improve both the understanding and execution of American law.

Fastcase Tip: Browse Statutes in Outline View

With electronic sources, sometimes the fastest way to find the statute section that you are looking for is to browse the statute in Outline View.

For example, if you wanted to browse the U.S. Code to find 42 U.S.C. § 1983, you would follow these steps: 1) Select Search Statutes from the Search menu. 2) Above the text box, there are two tabs, a Search tab and a Browse tab. Click on the Browse tab. 3) A list of searchable ju-risdictions will appear. Select U.S. Code from the list of statutes and jurisdictions by clicking on the plus sign next to “Unit-ed States Code.” This will bring you to an expandable outline of the U.S. Code. Choose which edition of the U.S. Code you want to search by clicking on the plus sign next to the applicable edition. 4) Click on the plus sign next to each Title to view the Chapters within each Title. Then click on the plus sign next to Chap-ter to view each Section.

bar aCtions

46 OregOn State Bar Bulletin • May 2014

DisciplineNote: More than 14,700 persons are

eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same name or similar names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and bar numbers.

GREGG A. McDONALD

OSB #910740 Portland Public reprimand

On Feb. 19, 2014, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline publicly reprimanding Portland lawyer, Gregg McDonald, for a violation of RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obliga-tion under the rules of a tribunal).

In late 2011, McDonald stipulated to the entry of a permanent stalking order, which prohibited him from contacting the petitioner in a civil case. A short time later, the circuit court entered an order that memorialized the stipulated agree-ment.

Despite his awareness of the court’s order, McDonald knowingly contacted the petitioner in mid-2012, in violation of the circuit court’s stalking order.

In October 2012, McDonald pled guilty to one count of violating the circuit court’s stalking protective order and was found in willful contempt of court for that violation.

The stipulation recited that McDon-ald’s conduct was aggravated in part by his selfish motivation, but mitigated by a number of factors including, his lack of prior relevant discipline; lack of dishon-esty; personal or emotional problems; co-operation with the bar; and remorse.

MONTGOMERY W. COBB

OSB #831730 Portland 30-day suspension

Effective March 25, 2014, the disci-

plinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Montgomery Cobb for 30 days for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).

From 2008 to 2010, Cobb was the des-ignated “tax matters partner” in a small firm. The firm experienced financial prob-lems. The Oregon Department of Rev-enue reported that from 2008-2010, Cobb withheld money from his employees’ wag-es but failed to pay it to the state or federal governments. After the firm dissolved and Cobb formed his own LLC in November 2009, he failed to file any state quarterly reports. Similarly, in 2010, Cobb failed to file state withholding tax reports.

Failure to pay over funds withheld from employees’ wages for federal and state taxes for 10 separate quarters, over a three-year period constituted a crime un-der 26 USC §7501(a) subject to penalties under 26 USC § 7202 and or 23 USC § 7203 in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2).

Cobb’s absence of disciplinary his-tory, lack of selfish motive, cooperation, remorse and subsequent payment of some of the funds to the federal government mitigated the sanction.

KATHERINE C. TANK

OSB #883199 Bend 90-day suspension

Effective April 1, 2014, the disciplin-ary board approved a stipulation for disci-pline suspending Bend lawyer Katherine Tank for 90 days for violations of the following: RPC 3.3(a) (false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving misrepresentation); and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

In 2009 Tank represented a corpora-tion on matters related to its corporate records. Because the corporation did not have complete records, some were drafted

by an associate in Tank’s firm. She had no personal involvement in the drafting. The records purported to memorialize corporate records, events and actions dat-ing back 20 years.

In 2010 litigation, at issue in which was ownership and control of the corpo-ration, Tank stated or implied that the corporate records were prepared well be-fore the litigation began. Tank’s repre-sentations did not accurately reflect the course of events and were misleading to the court.

Tank’s absence of any disciplinary his-tory, lack of selfish motive, cooperation and remorse mitigated her sanction.

SUSAN C. STEVES

OSB #954282 Bend Disbarment

Effective April 8, 2014, a trial panel of the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Board disbarred Bend attorney Susan C. Steves for violating the following: RPC 1.3 (ne-glect of legal matters); RPC 1.4(a) (fail-ure to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters to the extent necessary to permit clients to make in-formed decisions); RPC 1.16(c) (failure to notify the court or obtain permission to withdraw); RPC 3.3(a)(1) (making a false statement of law or fact to the court); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving mis-representation); and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (con-duct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The trial panel entered a default judg-ment against Steves for her conduct in four client matters. In determining that Steves should be disbarred, the panel con-sidered that she had acted intentionally and had caused actual injury to her cli-ents, the court and the opposing parties. The trial panel also considered Steves’ two prior suspensions for similar conduct; that her conduct involved multiple of-fenses and displayed a consistent pattern of misconduct; that she was motivated by


self-interest; that the victims of her con-duct were vulnerable; and that she had substantial experience in the practice of law.

FRANCISCO C. SEGARRA

OSB #065047 Eugene 90-day suspension, all but 30-days stayed pending a two-year probation

Effective June 1, 2014, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Eugene attorney Francisco Segarra for 90 days, with all but 30-days stayed pending probation for violations of the following: RPC 1.3 (neglect); RPC 1.4(a)(failure to keep a client informed or comply with requests for information); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to adequately explain a matter to a client ); RPC 1.16(a)(2) (failure to withdraw when a mental con-dition materially impairs a lawyer’s abil-ity to represent a client); RPC 1.16 (d) (failure to take reasonable steps to protect client’s interests on termination); RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to respond to the bar); and RPC 8.4(a)(3) (misrepresentation), for his conduct in two unrelated client matters.

In the first matter, Segarra represented a wife in a divorce with no children and few assets. Segarra filed the petition but failed to communicate with the client or explain the status of the case. Segarra did not timely produce discovery to oppos-ing counsel and failed to appear the day of trial due to migraine headaches. As a result, the client was sanctioned for fail-ing to comply with the discovery deadline and appear at trial. Despite his impair-ment, Segarra failed to properly withdraw or take any other action to advance his client’s matter.

In the second matter, Segarra was hired to respond a show cause order re-garding parenting time and to file a mo-tion to modify the parenting time provi-sions of a divorce decree. Segarra drafted a motion to modify but failed to file it, and failed to communicate with his client. Instead, Segarra withdrew from the case without timely notice and failed to pro-tect his client’s interest upon withdrawal. Despite multiple requests, Segarra failed to return the client’s file.

Although aggravated by his multiple offenses, Segarra’s sanction was mitigated

by his lack of prior discipline and the fact that he was experiencing emotional prob-lems during the period in which the con-duct in these matters occurred that may have contributed to or exacerbated his misconduct.

ApplicationsThe following have applied for admis-

sion under the reciprocity, house counsel or bar examination rules. The Board of Bar Examiners requests that members ex-amine this list and bring to the board’s at-tention in a signed letter any information that might influence the board in consid-ering the moral character of any applicant for admission. Send correspondence to Admissions Director, Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners, 16037 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, P.O. Box 231935, Ti-gard, OR 97281.

Reciprocity: Autumn R. Ascano; Ar-thur A. Butler; Ruth M. Harper; Alice E. Keane; Kristine E. Kruger; Erin Bradley McAleer; Lee M. McKenna; Todd W. Reichert; Adam E. Schwartz; Barbara A. West; and Sally J. Wiggins.

In-house Counsel: Timothy J. Crean and Amy K. Swinhoe.

Reinstatements

Notices of reinstatement applications are no longer published in the Bulletin. Visit www.osbar.org/reinstatements to view any pending applications.

Free Vacation Voucher

48 OregOn State Bar Bulletin • May 2014

Among Ourselves

Douglas G. Hous-er has been rec-ognized by the Defense Research Institute (DRI) with the Louis B. Potter Lifetime Professional Ser-vice Award. He re-ceived the award at

the annual meeting of the 22,000 mem-ber DRI, held in mid-October in Chicago. Houser’s commitment to DRI began more than 40 years ago. He served twice on DRI’s board of directors, and also served as national treasurer, chaired the first annual membership convention in the early 1990s and lectured at DRI national continuing education programs dozens of times both in the U.S. and Europe. Lo-cally, Houser has also held many leader-ship positions, including president of the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel (OADC), the state arm of DRI.

The public is invited to the dedication of the Oregon World War II Memorial at Wilson Park on the State Capitol grounds in Salem at 1:30 p.m., Friday, June 6, the 70th anniversary of D-Day. The DuBoff Law Group in Portland serves as the gen-eral counsel for the Oregon WWII Me-morial Foundation, which is responsible for the memorial.

For a third consecutive year, K&L Gates has been identified among the top 20 law firm brands in the United States, according to legal market research com-pany Acritas’ U.S. Law Firm Brand Index 2014. The ranking is based on interviews with more than 700 in-house counsel at organizations both in and outside the U.S. The report ranks firms on such factors as top-of-mind awareness, favorability, con-sideration for both major M&A and top-level litigation, and overall level of use.

bar PeoPle

Lynne Siegel, principal of Strategies for Philanthropy, has been elected vice chair of California Casualty Indemnity Exchange. Siegel will also serve as board chair of the company’s four subsidiaries, two of which are based in Oregon. She has been a California Casualty Board member for more than 20 years and has been the board secretary since 2010. Siegel is a phi-lanthropy consultant; her practice serves foundations, trusts and philanthropic families making grants throughout the country.

Lane Powell Share-holder Jill R. Long has been selected for the 2014 Fel-lows Program of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, a national organiza-tion of leading gen-

eral counsel and managing partners. The program is a highly structured initiative built to increase diversity at the leader-ship levels of the nation’s law firms and corporate legal departments.

Rachael Atchison has been elected to the board of direc-tors of Portland’s Rock‘n’Roll Camp for Girls. Atchi-son is a member of Tonkon Torp’s business law prac-

tice group, where she works on a variety of matters including securities regulation and issues related to the financial ser-vices industry. An accomplished guitar-ist and song writer, she is co-founder of a band that has performed throughout the United States. The Rock ’n’ Roll Camp for Girls provides workshops and techni-cal training that builds girls’ self-esteem through music creation and performance. Programs are available for girls and wom-en age 8 and up.

The 2014 World Trademark Review 1000 re-cently named Lane Powell as one of the top trademark law firms in Oregon and Washington, and Lane Powell Oregon attorneys Kenneth R. Davis II and Parna A. Mehrbani as top individuals in the practice.

On March 5, Miller Nash and partner Greg Lynch hosted the Second Annual Animal Law Networking Event, in con-junction with Lewis & Clark Law School’s Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and Animal Law Review. The event aimed to connect law students interested in animal law with professionals in the Portland area. Lynch, former chair of the Oregon State Bar Animal Law Section, was in at-tendance, as well as local attorneys from ALDF, the Oregon Humane Society and private practice.

Karen O’Kasey of Hart Wagner, and Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf share-holder Renée Ro-thauge have both become fellows of the American Col-lege of Trial Law-yers. The induction took place recently before an audience of more than 1,000 during the recent 2014 Annual Meet-ing of the college in La Quinta, Calif.


Lane Powell Share-holder Tanya Dur-kee Urbach has been appointed to the board of direc-tors for Queen’s Bench, the Port-land chapter of Oregon Women Lawyers. Founded

in 1948, Queen’s Bench is a nonprofit cor-poration whose mission is to promote the professional advancement, camaraderie and good fellowship among women in the legal profession and in the community.

K&L Gates has named Portland asso-ciate Shiau Yen Chin-Dennis as its repre-sentative to the 2014 class of the Leader-ship Council on Legal Diversity Fellows. Chin-Dennis is one of more than 170 at-torneys from around the U.S. selected as LCLD Fellows for 2014, the largest class in the program’s history.

For the ninth year, Oregon Business magazine has recognized Sussman Shank as one of the “100 Best Companies to Work for in Oregon.” The firm ranked ninth in the medium-sized company cat-egory, the highest rating of any law firm in our size category. The list recognizes com-panies for excellence in work environ-ment, management and communication, and decision-making and trust, as well as in career development and learning, and benefits and compensation. The winners and their rankings are published in the March 2014 issue and online at Oregon-Business.com.

Samuels Yoelin Kantor partner Victoria Blachly has been appointed to the Governor’s Commission on Senior Services, which is dedicated to enhancing and protecting the

quality of life of older Oregonians. Blach-ly’s practice is almost entirely focused on fiduciary litigation for individual trustees, corporate trustees, beneficiaries and per-sonal representatives — including trust and estate litigation, will contests, trust disputes, undue influence, capacity cases, claims of fiduciary breach, financial elder


Attorneys’ Marketplace

Court reportersActive Court Reporting & Video ServicesLinda Crago & Associates, LLCPH 541-673-6628 • 800-237-Depo (3376)FX [email protected]

Teach Reporting, Inc.Catherine Teach1500 SW 1st Ave, Ste 985, Portland, OR 97201PH 503-248-1003 FX [email protected]

All the services of larger reporting firms including video depositions and video conferencing with a personal commitment to superior service. Service area includes Oregon and Washington.

employment serviCesStaffing Solutions, LLC/K-CounselZeta Rennie610 SW Broadway, Ste 500, Portland, OR 97205PH 503-295-9948 FX 503-295-9977zeta@staffingsolutionsllc.comwww.staffingsolutionsllc.com

expert Witness/testimonypersonal injury

The Law Office of Jeffrey S. MutnickJeffrey S. Mutnick737 SW Vista Ave, Portland, OR 97205PH 503-595-1033 CELL 503-780-4818FX [email protected]

Sewer Forensic

Iverson EngineeringAl Iverson, PEPortland, ORPH [email protected]

Vocational & Rehabilitation Experts

Scott Stipe & Associates, Inc. DBA Career Directions NorthwestScott Stipe, MA, CRC, DABVE, LPC1425 SE 46th Ave, Portland, OR 97215PH 503-234-4484 FX 503-234-4126sstipe@careerdirectionsnw.comwww.careerdirectionsnw.com

Vocational evaluation, expert testimony, earning capacity analysis, labor market survey, life care planning, vocational rehabilitation. Nationally certified, recognized, credible experts. Established 1978.

Jones & Roth, CPAs & Business AdvisorsWilliam V. Mason II, ASA, CPA/ABV, CFF Christopher Hays, ASA, CPA/ABV, CVA, CFE432 W 11th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401PH [email protected]

From offices in Lane, Deschutes, and Washington Counties, our business valuation and litigation support team has more than 50 years combined experience serving the State of Oregon.

Markee Valuations, LLCLaura Markee, CFA, ASAPO Box 61868, Vancouver, WA 98660PH 971-201-7349 CELL [email protected]

Over 15 years of experience in business valuation and financial damages analysis (lost profits/lost wages, business interruption claims). Recognizing that each situation is unique, we provide experience-driven, detail-focused valuations to meet each client’s specific needs.

Morones Analytics, LLCSerena Morones625 SW Broadway, Ste 200, Portland, OR 97205PH 503-223-5168 FX [email protected]

Business valuation, complex damage analysis, forensic accounting, fraud investigation, intellectual property damages, lost wages.

Computer ForensiCsMiller Computer GroupRoy Miller10774 SE Highway 212, Clackamas, OR 97015PH 503-655-1405 FX [email protected]

ConsultantsWeather/Climate

Cascade Climatology Consulting Corp.Jordan SuttonPO Box 15060, Mill Creek, WA 98082-5060PH [email protected]

Court BonDsCourt Bonds5727 SW Macadam Ave, Portland, OR 97239PH 503-977-5624 • [email protected]

A division of JD Fulwiler & Company Insurance

aCCiDent reConstruCtionSkyShots Aerial PhotographyDan Bigelow, Jr.PO Box 91306, Portland, OR 97291PH [email protected]

aCCountantslitigation support

Cogence Group PCJay Sickler, CPA, CFF, ABV, ASA733 SW 2nd Ave, Ste 215Portland, OR 97204PH [email protected]

Financial forensics | Business valuation. Answers to complex financial questions. We are accurate, credible, and ethical. Passionate about what we do, which translates into serving our clients with the very best we can offer. Collectively, we have more than 35 years of financial forensics experience. Jay has testified more than 100 times as a financial forensics expert witness, more than many other experts combined. Our reputation is built on being skilled in communicating our findings persuasively and with integrity. We get the job done right, on time, and backed up by expert testimony.



Business valuationsBV-Advisors, LLCR. Lee Foster, CPA, CFF, ABV, ASA888 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 800, Portland, OR 97204PH 503-445-3376 FX [email protected]

Valuation of debt and equity securities, intellectual property and other intangible assets for private and public companies (ESOPs, 409A, transfer pricing, fairness opinions, corporate/marital dissolutions, etc.). Forensic and economic damages analysis (lost profits/wages, patent infringement, breach of contract, business interruption claims, etc.).

Cogence Group PCJay Sickler, CPA, CFF, ABV, ASA733 SW 2nd Ave, Ste 215, Portland, OR 97204PH [email protected]


ForensiC aCCountingCogence Group PCJay Sickler, CPA, CFF, ABV, ASA733 SW 2nd Ave, Ste 215, Portland, OR 97204PH [email protected]

Geffen MesherDavid S. Porter, CPA, CFE, PI, Shareholder888 SW 5th Ave, Ste 800, Portland, OR 97204PH 503-445-3417 FX [email protected]/fraud

A good forensic accounting team should be made up of individuals who are experts in what they do, while possessing the desire to dig, delve, ask questions and consider all possible scenarios. Geffen Mesher’s forensic team includes four Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs).



insuranCeBrown & Brown NorthwestCathy Webb2701 NW Vaughn, Ste 320, Portland, OR 97210PH 503-219-3241 FX [email protected]

JD Fulwiler & Company Insurance5727 SW Macadam Ave, Portland, OR 97239PH 503-293-8325 • [email protected]

Commercial • Personal • Life • Health • Financial

interpretersOregon Certified Interpreters Network, Inc.StatewidePH 503-244-7693 FX [email protected]

liFe Care plannersDana Penilton Consulting, Inc.Dana Penilton, RN, BSN, CCM, CLCP6327-C SW Capitol Hwy, PMB 132 Portland, OR 97239PH 503-246-6232 CELL 503-701-9009FX [email protected]

Life care plan expertise complemented by extensive experience in catastrophic injury management. Professional nurse consulting firm established in 1997. Nationally certified in life care planning and medical case management.

litigation supportBV-Advisors, LLCR. Lee Foster, CPA, CFF, ABV, ASA888 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 800, Portland, OR 97204PH 503-445-3376 FX [email protected]

Valuation of debt and equity securities, intellectual property and other intangible assets for private and public companies (ESOPs, 409A, transfer pricing, fairness opinions, corporate/marital dissolutions, etc.). Forensic and economic damages analysis (lost profits/wages, patent infringement, breach of contract, business interruption claims, etc.).

Jones & Roth, CPAs & Business AdvisorsWilliam V. Mason II, ASA, CPA/ABV, CFFChristopher Hays, ASA, CPA/ABV, CVA, CFE432 W 11th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401PH [email protected]

From offices in Lane, Deschutes, and Washington Counties, our business valuation and litigation support team has more than 50 years combined experience serving the State of Oregon.

puBliC reCorDsUnisearch, Inc.Loretta McCool or Janis Timlick325 13th St NE, Ste 501, Salem, OR 97301-2294PH 800-554-3113 FX [email protected]@unisearch.comwww.unisearch.com

Worldwide Corporate, Registered Agent, UCC Services and public record research, including multi-state filing and search projects.

registereD agentsUnisearch, Inc.Loretta McCool or Janis Timlick325 13th St NE, Ste 501, Salem, OR 97301-2294PH 800-554-3113 FX [email protected]@unisearch.comwww.unisearch.com

Unisearch offers registered agent representation through National Registered Agents, Inc. (NRAI) and CT Corporation System, offering a wide range of services to assist in managing your corporate entities.

superviseD visitation monitorVisitation AccessCarrie Puterbaugh2050 Beavercreek Rd, Ste 101-145 Oregon City, OR 97045PH 503-915-7984 FX [email protected]

Are court ordered supervised visits required? Get an impartial service to help. We offer supervised visitation services with full documentation and a thorough intake procedure, meeting the highest standards in the industry.

tax proBlem resolutionEileen D. Sautner, EA, LTC, USTCP470 N Villa Rd, Newberg, OR 97132PH 503-538-8340 FX 503-538-0547eileen@sautnerandassociates.comwww.sautnerandassociates.com

US Tax Court Practitioner. Over 20 years experience in the tax field. Eileen is one of four individuals in the state of Oregon admitted to practice as a non-attorney in US Tax Court. Eileen is also an Enrolled Agent and represents clients with Offers in Compromise, Installment agreements, non-filers, and audits for individuals and businesses.

viDeo serviCesDiscovery Media Productions, Inc.Devin Williams, CLVS6915 SW Macadam Ave, Ste 130 Portland, OR 97219PH [email protected]

voCational & rehaBilitation experts

Reigel Vocational ConsultationKent B. Reigel, Portland: 503-274-4157 E. Lisa Broten, Portland: 503-274-7051 Nancy Bloom, Newport: 541-265-9682 2250 NW Flanders, Ste 201, Portland, OR [email protected]

Expert Witness Testimony, Vocational Evaluation, Personal Injury and Family Law. Offices in Portland and Newport.

A Golden Century -...

Documents

Transcript of A Golden Century -...