Latest News

The YLS Board has approved a slate of four director nominees to join the board as of June 1.

Amelia Andersen earned her JD from University of San Francisco School of Law and was admitted to practice in Oregon in 2015. She practices disability law at the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization.

Amelia first became active within the YLS when she joined the YLS Service to the Public Committee in 2016, and was appointed committee chair for the current 2019-20 program year. She is also involved with Catholic Charities, where she serves as volunteer and Cultural Navigator.






Anthony Blake is a graduate of Lewis & Clark Law School and was admitted to the OSB in 2016. Anthony is an associate at Markowitz Herbold where he practices business litigation, contract disputes, employment matters and sports law.

Anthony joined the YLS Pro Bono Committee in 2017, and presently serves as the committee’s chair. Outside of the
MBA, Anthony serves on the St. Andrew Nativity School Board of Directors and is a member of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.






Peter Tran earned his JD from Lewis & Clark Law School and was admitted to practice in Oregon in 2013. He practices business, employment and business immigration law at Immix Law Group PC.

Peter joined the YLS Service to the Public Committee in 2017, served as chair during the 2018- 19 program year, and is presently serving on the YLS Board after being appointed to fill a one-year vacancy concluding this spring. Outside of the MBA, he serves on the board of the Portland Fruit Tree Project and on the Advisory Board of the Lewis & Clark Small Business Legal Clinic.







Maxine Tuan attended Lewis & Clark Law School, receiving her JD and joining the Oregon bar in 2015. She practices family law at Wyse Kadish LLP.

Maxine’s YLS involvement began as a member of the YLS CLE Committee in 2016, and she presently serves as the committee chair. Maxine is President-Elect of the Oregon Asian Pacific American Bar Association, volunteers with St. Andrew Legal Clinic’s Night Clinic Program, and serves as a 1L Mentor with Lewis & Clark Law School.

Presiding Judge’s Report and Courthouse Update 

Updates from Presiding Judge Bushong and Trial Court Administrator Barbara Marcille

New Courthouse News
The opening of the new Central Courthouse is scheduled for Monday, July 20. Its official address is 1200 SW First Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. The last day of court business in the old courthouse will be Tuesday, July 14, and the old courthouse will be closed Wednesday, July 15 through Friday, July 17 to accommodate the move. The Justice Center, Juvenile Court, and East County Court will each be open those days. During this time, dockets for some essential matters (for example, restraining orders, immediate danger issues, etc.) may be scheduled at the other courthouses. The court is currently working on those details. Courtrooms in the new courthouse have been assigned to judges, and that information will be made public soon. Presiding Court will be in Courtroom 7A on the 7th floor. Trial call/assignment day will be in the old courthouse on Tuesday, July 14, for trials that begin on Monday, July 20.

New Referee. If the Supreme Court approves him as a pro tem judge, Eric Lentz will replace retired referee Steve Todd. Referee Lentz is expected to start in March.

Revised Hours. Due to budgeting issues, the Sheriff has revised facility operating hours for the current downtown courthouse. The building will now be open at 7 a.m. and doors will be locked at 5 p.m. All visitors will need to be out of the courthouse by 6 p.m. Anyone in the courthouse after 6 p.m. will have to be personally escorted out by court staff or judges as the front doors will be locked.

Courthouse Security and Emergency Preparedness. ORS 1.180 provides for the appointment of an Advisory Committee on Court Security and Emergency Preparedness to develop a two year plan for courthouse security.  The plan adopted beginning July 1, 2019, addresses security in the current courthouse, not the new courthouse. Judge Bushong has reconvened the Advisory Committee to consider whether any amendments to the current plan are needed for the new courthouse. The Advisory Committee met in January, and is scheduled to meet monthly until the security issues are resolved. In addition to security in the new courthouse, the committee may address concerns regarding delays in transporting in-custody defendants to a courtroom. Transport delays are exacerbated when there are trials requiring extra security, such as the recent Jeremy Christian trial. On any given day, there are roughly 30 to 60 people on the in-custody list who need to be transported to a courtroom. Membership on the Advisory Committee is set by statute. MBA President, Sarah Radcliffe, represents the bar.

New Courthouse Access. Attorneys will likely require a new identification badge to enter the new courthouse. Details on how attorneys can obtain an expedited access ID badge for the new courthouse will be announced in the near future.

Civil Tips

Trial Dates. Trial dates for civil cases are set at the Trial Readiness Conference (TRC); those dates should be treated as “firm,” subject to change only for good cause such as an emergency that could not have been anticipated at the time of the TRC. Attorneys requesting to reschedule a trial date selected at a TRC for good cause must request a scheduling conference with the presiding judge. The court will not grant a setover at morning call or at ex parte.

Please, No Double-Sided Documents. Because all files are maintained electronically, all documents submitted to the court for filing must be scanned into the court’s case management system. It is more time-consuming for court staff to scan double-sided documents, and back sides of pages are easily missed. The better practice is to submit single-sided documents. Although this is not currently specified in the rules, the court may promulgate a Supplemental Local Rule (SLR) to address this problem. 

Fridays are Motion Days. Trials are held generally Monday through Thursday, with Fridays reserved for hearings on motions, judicial settlement conferences, and other short matters. Attorneys requesting a motion hearing should plan on having the hearing on a Friday, as Mondays through Thursdays are reserved for trials. Attorneys requesting to have a trial continue on a Friday must notify presiding court of that request six weeks in advance of the trial to give the court sufficient time to clear a judge’s docket.

Trials Lasting Five Days or Longer. A reminder: under SLR 7.055(14), if a trial is expected to last five days or longer, you need to send a letter to the presiding court at least six weeks in advance so the court can find an available trial judge. The letter should indicate whether the parties are requesting trial on one or more Fridays. Don’t wait until morning call and report “ready” for a five-or six-day trial.

If Your Case Settles. Another reminder: if the case settles before call, please notify presiding court. There have been an increasing number of cases on the civil “call” docket that presumably resolved because no one appeared at call or contacted the court. If that happens, the court will dismiss the case for want of prosecution/failure to appear at call.

UTCR 7.020(2) and (3). The court notifies attorneys before dismissing a case under UTCR 7.020. If an attorney receives one of those notices and does not want the case dismissed, the attorney should request a Rule 7 continuance. Otherwise, the court will enter a Judgment of Dismissal, and the attorney will have to satisfy the requirements of ORCP 71 for obtaining relief from judgment (and pay the required fee).

Summary Judgment. The court’s revised SLRs went into effect February 1. It has been a long-standing practice in this court to assign summary judgment motions to a pro tem judge. The court greatly appreciates the assistance of its pro tem judges - all approved by the Supreme Court - in handling this important work, but has allowed parties to request a sitting circuit court judge. Under new SLR 5.016, a party requesting to have a summary judgment motion heard by a circuit court judge instead of a pro tem judge must make a timely request to reschedule the hearing before a sitting circuit court judge. The Attorney Reference Manual has appropriate forms. To be timely under the new SLR, the motion to reschedule must be presented at ex parte within five calendar days of the initial assignment to a pro tem judge. Untimely requests will be denied.

“Justice for All” Conference. Presiding Judge Bushong attended the “Oregon Justice for All” conference on January 14. The conference focused on addressing the unmet need for legal services in civil and family law cases. Attorneys are reminded that the court offers a free mediation program for civil cases that have at least one self-represented litigant. The mediation program is coordinated by Kathryn Scott, Mediation Program Coordinator for the court.

New Tech Lunch & Learn CLE. The MBA and the court are planning to hold Lunch & Learn CLE seminars about the technology in the new courthouse. Some programs will occur after the new courthouse opens in July. There may be some limited opportunities for programs before the move to the new courthouse. Dates will be announced.

I had only been a juvenile delinquency attorney for a month before my first trial was set, but I didn’t need a ton of experience to recognize that the facts were not on my client’s side. The District Attorney filed Robbery in the Third Degree, Assault in the Fourth Degree and Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree charges - with various forms of evidence to support them. I negotiated a potential plea deal with the DA that would avoid a felony charge on my client’s (Robert, a 15-year-old, name changed) record, but Robert was unwilling to take the plea. Robert informed me later that he and the victim had a long-running dispute, one which made him too stubborn to admit any guilt at all. So, counter to my advice, we went to trial. Although I didn’t think it was the best course of action given the facts, I did the best I could to prepare. Together, Robert and I crafted a trial strategy and met several times to go over our approach. I met with his family several times and learned more about Robert’s goals and aspirations. Robert shared the nature of his dispute with the victim and although irrelevant to the case, it did help me understand a bit more about Robert as a person. Over the course of the trial, we called witnesses and cross-examined others, made objections, and filed motions. During the proceedings, Robert’s mother sat stoically in the back of the courtroom as he remained remarkably cool. When the judge asked him to rise so she could deliver the disposition, I felt Robert’s tension and anxiety alongside my own. I placed my hand on his shoulder and we both lowered our heads slightly when she found him within the jurisdiction of the court (guilty).

Robert surprised me with what he did next. I expected him to yell or cry - isn’t that what I would have done had I been in his shoes? Wasn’t he angry? Wasn’t he sad? Instead, he leaned over to me, shook my hand and softly said, ‘I appreciate you doing everything you could. Thank you.’ He was angry. He was sad. But he was also grateful.

The question is: what was he grateful for? We didn’t get the outcome we wanted that day, so it clearly had to be something else.

During the disposition hearing, all of the things I learned about Robert and his family while spending time with them suddenly became extremely relevant. Because I could clearly communicate Robert’s needs, the judge was able to craft a creative disposition plan that felt like a positive next step for Robert and his family. 

Fast forward 11 years to the month and I’m sitting with Trei, a young man at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility. I am no longer a juvenile delinquency attorney, but still work with justice-involved youth. Trei has been locked up for over seven years. It is immediately apparent that he sees connections in the world that most miss and I am disheartened that society has not provided adequate recognition for his wisdom. I don’t ask him what he did to get sent to MacLaren because that is not important. Besides, we both know a quick internet search would provide that information if that’s what I’m really seeking. Instead, we share experiences. He spent time as a youth in Northeast Portland near Woodlawn Park, an area that I know well. Trei, there as a young man of color in the 2000s and 2010s, and I, there as a young man of color in the 1980s and 1990s. Trei’s father died when he was a small child, whereas mine was around to make sure I had positive activities for growth and mentors nearby who kept negative influences from distracting me. Both of our mothers worked tirelessly throughout the week to provide for our families; mine made enough in her job that I didn’t have to work to take care of younger siblings like Trei did. We talk about the systemic traps that exist for young people of color - like the way education disproportionately sorts out kids of color and discards many into the school-to-prison pipeline. Trei never felt connected to teachers. I learned school can be fun if your basic needs are already met.

Trei refuses to make any excuses for the decisions he’s made in his life and he is wholly uninterested in soliciting any form of pity.

But during our conversation, he makes one thing very clear about his experiences with the legal system – he trusted no one in his case. Not the judge, not jurors, not even his own attorney. As a former public defender, his distrust of his attorney struck me most. Trei recounts how he felt the weight of the criminal justice system on his shoulders and how he was unsure if his attorney was actually on his side, or if his attorney was just a cog in a machine systematically designed to grind up young boys of color. In turn, I recall that one of the hardest aspects of being a public defender is finding the time to connect and communicate with clients. He’s still upset about how quickly the process moved without him feeling like he got to tell his story. I recall having to actively learn how to listen for more than just the facts of the case, but for the history and emotion of the human being sitting in the chair across from me. He shares how impossible it is for him to trust people he does not have a relationship with. I recall dreadful feelings of inadequacy trying to represent people I did not know very well.

How can we, as attorneys, adequately represent people when we haven’t done enough to earn their trust? The attorney-client relationship is incredibly complex in its dynamics and disproportionate in its allocation of power often leaving clients without clarity in the legal process. For those like Trei who have been failed by multiple institutions throughout life, what should attorneys do to ensure that those clients can at least trust those representing them? James Baldwin famously stated, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” It is in that spirit that attorneys must perpetually criticize legal systems in which we work, especially when working with populations marginalized by those same systems. Our criticism should lead us to action that improves legal systems and to action that improves advocacy for individual clients. And, most importantly, we should be able to demonstrate to each of our clients all of these improvements.

It is important to invest in the attorney-client relationship in ways that provide opportunities to build trust with clients. Our clients must often be vulnerable when sharing their stories and we should be well-versed in understanding the historical contexts that give additional meaning to those stories. When representing clients of color, it is even more imperative that we consider the ways in which race can shape those clients’ experiences. It takes significant self-reflection and continued education to better understand the historical contexts that we don’t understand naturally from experience. But when we make that extra effort, our idea of a good outcome will parallel our client’s idea of a good outcome.

The MBA Bar Fellows Program - an innovative opportunity designed to diversify the Oregon bar and increase access to justice - has launched its second class of impressive law students. With the support of the University of Oregon, Lewis & Clark, and a great group of summer sponsors, the program has grown to support eight first-year law students in the 2020 class: four from the University of Oregon and four from Lewis & Clark. Each Fellow brings strong skills and a deep commitment to the law, and will increase the diversity of the bar. 

Diversifying the legal profession is a critical goal for the MBA. The MBA Bar Fellows Program furthers this goal by recruiting and supporting diverse law students who plan to practice in Oregon. Each Fellow receives (1) a tuition scholarship of up to $60,000 from the University of Oregon or Lewis & Clark, (2) a 10-week paid summer fellowship at a firm or in-house law department, (3) a judicial mentor, and (4) other targeted opportunities. 

The 2020 summer sponsors are Ball Janik, Dunn Carney, Foster Garvey, Lane Powell, Legal Aid Services of Oregon (generously funded by the Oregon Women Lawyers Foundation), Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, Nike, the OSB Professional Liability Fund, PacifiCorp, Richardson Wright, and Umpqua Bank. These summer sponsors are fortunate to be working with some of the state’s best upcoming lawyers, and are also demonstrating their deep commitment to diversity of the Oregon bar through support of this program.

We are also very happy to report that the 2019 MBA Bar Fellows - the inaugural class - had very successful experiences in their first summer placements and are well on their way to becoming successful members of the OSB.

Thank you again to the summer sponsors, judicial mentors, and law schools for joining together to support our Bar Fellows!

If you or your firm or company is interested in learning more about the MBA Bar Fellows Program, please visit www.mbabar.org/fellows or contact Jollee Patterson at jollee.patterson@millernash.com or 503.224.5858 or Kathy Modie at the MBA at kathy@mbabar.org, or 503.222.3275.

The Multnomah Bar Foundation is pleased to announce its new officers and directors. We asked our officers for their thoughts about the MBF and its work.

Jennifer S. Wagner, Stoll Berne PC, President, about the year ahead: “It is an honor to serve on the MBF Board. This year I look forward to launching the MBF’s new program, CourtSupport, which is designed to fund projects that help community members navigate the court system, particularly in areas impacting access to justice.”







J. Mackenzie Hogan, Harris & Bowker LLP, Vice President: “The MBF is taking a bold step with the launch of CourtSupport, and I am very excited to be a small part of that process. The launch of this new program, and the opening of the new Multnomah County Courthouse, will make 2020 a year to remember.”





Victoria D. Blachly, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Secretary Treasurer: “The opening of the new Multnomah County Courthouse this year aligns with the MBF’s goal to assist the court through its new CourtSupport program, so 2020 is shaping up to be an exciting year. I am quite honored to be part of it. I am also hopeful the MBF and our legal friends can bring innovative ideas, financial support, and possibly highly trained courthouse comfort dogs to further the important goal of access to justice. This is the year to get involved and make a difference, so stay tuned to see what MBF has in store.”






Nicholas A. Kampars, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Immediate Past President, about his final year on the board, “With the opening of the new courthouse, 2020 promises to be an exciting year for our legal community and the MBF. I’m honored to serve one more year on the board, advancing the good work the MBF does.”




New directors are C. Marie Eckert, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP; Joseph L. Franco, Holland & Knight LLP; Elizabeth C. Knight, Dunn Carney LLP; and Marshal P. Spector, Gevurtz Menashe PC.
  








Continuing directors are Abby Wool Landon, Tonkon Torp LLP, James E. Oliver, Jr., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP; Judge Xiomara Torres, Multnomah County Circuit Court; and Richard J. Vangelisti, Vangelisti Mediation. Nellie Q. Barnard, Holland & Knight LLP, is the current MBA Board Liaison.

I used to be an interpreter, and I loved it. Interpreting is a meticulous, multi-layered art form that is difficult to master. It involves not only the ability to speak two different languages back-to-back, but also conveying the correct words, tone, affect, and purpose. Interpreting is an involved and exhausting process, and one that attorneys do not necessarily understand. The purpose of this article is to help lawyers understand the interpreting process, its role in court, and the best practices for working with interpreters.

According to the Oregon Judicial department, about 10 percent of people in Multnomah County are Limited English Speakers (LEP). Throughout Oregon, the most requested language interpreters are for Spanish, American Sign Language, Russian, and Vietnamese. It is not uncommon for lawyers to have a case where one or both parties are LEPs, and it is important for lawyers and clients to know how to work with an interpreter.

What exactly is the role of an interpreter in legal proceedings? An interpreter is a neutral party who takes an oath to interpret everything that is said faithfully and accurately. She is there to ensure effective communication between the parties. The interpreter cannot give legal advice or insert her thoughts or prejudices into what she translates.

An interpreter cannot answer a question directly. For example, if a witness says, “I don’t understand the question,” the interpreter cannot then reframe the question. She must translate the witness’ statement and allow the attorney to do it. An attorney should ask to stop the proceedings if at any point there is a back and forth between interpreter and witness.  I once saw an interpreter give legal advice to a witness on how to properly answer a question. Since I spoke the translated language, I knew exactly what was going on and requested that the judge remind the interpreter that he was there to interpret, not give legal advice.

At other times, I’ve realized that my witness wasn’t really answering the question I was asking. If that happens, re-frame your question - some things can get lost in translation, especially if the interpreter is not privy to the case’s background.

On that note, try to provide a short brief with the case background or special terminology to the interpreter. You can do this for depositions or in-office meetings. This allows the interpreter to better translate specific terms that might not be common in a prompt manner. In Multnomah County, interpreters have access to the court record prior to a hearing.

Attorneys should also brief their witnesses on how to interact with the interpreter. The best practices for both attorneys and witnesses are to:

• Use short sentences;
• Speak in plain English;
• Allow some time for the interpreter to finish interpreting - some languages may require more time than others;
• do not talk over another person - an interpreter can only interpret one person at a time.

Another important rule is to give the interpreter a break. As I said at the beginning, interpreting can be exhausting. Therefore, it is recommended that interpreters take short breaks every 20-30 minutes. Whenever possible, you should consider having two interpreters if you have a lengthy hearing or deposition.

Give the court as much notice as possible of your interpreter needs. There are a limited number of certified interpreters, and the court must juggle that with the ever-growing caseload. For languages that are not common in your region, provide the court with information such as the witness’ country of origin, dialect, or even geographic region. In that vein, let the court know if your interpreter needs change – every now and then interpreters have to be flown in from other parts of the country. Letting the court know as soon as possible that you will no longer need an interpreter is vital.

And last but not least: remember that the interpreter is a professional, just like you.

Judge Alexander started his legal career at the State Attorney’s Office in the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Gainesville, Florida prosecuting misdemeanor and felony crimes. After five years in criminal practice, Judge Alexander took a job as in-house litigation counsel with an energy company in Florida. In 2012, he moved to Portland, where his wife is from, to raise their children closer to family. He worked at Markowitz Herbold PC, a boutique civil litigation firm, earning partnership in 2017. In his civil litigation practice, Judge Alexander handled everything from complex business litigation to plaintiff-side personal injury cases. His experience runs the gamut from trusts and estates to employment matters, contract disputes and intellectual property issues.

Judge Alexander has spent many hours giving back to the community: as a board member of the Classroom Law Project, a mock trial coach at Jefferson High School and as a volunteer for local nonprofits. In 2019, Governor Kate Brown appointed him to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Judge Alexander felt called to serve because he wants to make a positive difference in the lives of people who come before the court.

Judge Alexander’s unique perspective - as a criminal prosecutor, in-house counsel, and private practice civil litigator - affords him the opportunity to make a daily impact on those who appear in his courtroom. He strives to give litigants a fair chance to be heard, treat them with dignity and see their humanity. He values professionalism and preparation from attorneys, and also listens attentively to the individuals appearing pro se. As a member of the bench, Judge Alexander knows that he is in a privileged position to give back to the community and contribute to ongoing efforts to make the justice system more accessible and effective for all the people it serves.

If you asked Judge Alexander, he would say that becoming a member of the Multnomah County Circuit Court was the best way for him to give back to his community. It’s not a job where you can just go through the motions - it takes dedication, long hours, and a drive to help others. As a judge, it’s a challenge he happily faces every day.

This month’s spotlight is on Lillian Watson, owner of Gresham Family and Bankruptcy Law. Lillian’s first career was in mortgage lending. She then attended Lewis & Clark Law School, graduating in 2001 and going on to establish the firm she now owns.

Over the life of her career, Lillian has acted as a volunteer pro bono attorney for several different organizations. She volunteered at St. Andrew Legal Clinic; the Unlawful Practice of Law Committee with the OSB; the domestic Violence Project at Legal Aid Services of Oregon; and the Senior Law Project at Oregon Law Center. Now, her pro bono focus is as an attorney for children in domestic relations cases.

Oregon law provides for the appointment of an attorney to represent a child’s interests in a domestic relations case by motion of a party to the case or by motion of the court, and by the child asking for an attorney for themself. If one of the parties in a case asks for an attorney for a child, the court has the discretion to appoint one; however, if the child asks, the court must appoint one. Reasonable fees for the attorney’s work are available, but the cost for the attorney cannot be paid by funds earmarked for public defense services. Because money for attorney’s fees is often an issue for parties in domestic relations cases, the majority of attorneys that are appointed for children work pro bono.

The role of the attorney representing a child is to give a voice to that child in the proceedings because the parents may disagree on what is best for the child. Attorneys for children represent only the child’s interests and are not on either parent’s side. They also must advocate for a child’s wishes when that child is old enough to give input into the case.

Lillian had a few difficult cases representing children but is quick to point out that she does it to give back to the community; not for recognition or accolades. She believes that she has been blessed in her life and legal career, and feels that it is only right that she returns some of those blessings to her community: “I’ve been lucky,” she says simply. “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Lillian also emphasizes that pro bono work is not an all-or-nothing proposition. She says that there have been some years during her 19-year career where doing a lot of pro bono work was not possible, and that one who does pro bono work shouldn’t feel pressure to take a lot of difficult cases, or devote a huge portion of their practice to it. She believes that if each attorney who practices family law did some pro bono work, it would add up to a lot: “Maybe some years you only take one or two cases. Sometimes life gets in the way. But think about it: if everyone just took one or two cases, what a difference that would make. You don’t have to be a rockstar.”

Presiding Judge’s Report and Courthouse Update

Judicial Vacancy

Judge Gregory Silver has announced that he plans to retire and will not seek reelection when his term expires at the end of 2020. This vacancy - position 12 in the Fourth Judicial District - will be filled through an election, not through a gubernatorial appointment. The deadline for filing for the primary election is March 10.

Updates from Presiding Judge Stephen Bushong

Metropolitan Public Defender (MPD) has begun asserting challenges to the cash bail system in Oregon at arraignment and release hearings. MPD may look for an appropriate case to seek appellate review to address the challenges to the bail system. The challenges could affect the pace and other aspects of arraignment and other hearings, but the specific impact is unknown at this time. Judges will continue to address each situation on a case-by-case basis and based on the arguments presented. MPD might also pursue changes to the bail system through legislation.

The “What Works Conference” was held on January 16. This is a conference organized by leaders in the community and the court and is designed to address potential issues in the criminal justice system. The topic of this year’s conference was “Rethinking the Offender and Victim Dichotomy.”

Civil Cases - Practice Tips

1. Remember to check SLR 2.501 for the list of documents that must be presented conventionally and cannot be eFiled. If a document is not listed in SLR 2.051 it can and should be eFiled.
2. Under ORCP 79, a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) may be presented ex parte without notice to the adverse party or the adverse party’s attorney. Granting a TRO without notice should be considered an extraordinary remedy. Practitioners should keep in mind the specific emergency justifying immediate relief and tailor the TRO as narrowly as possible to address only that emergency.
3. SLR 7.055(14) requires practitioners to send a letter to the presiding judge at least six weeks in advance of trial if the trial is expected to take five days or longer or where the parties are requesting to conduct trial on one or more Fridays. The letter should include the name of the motions judge or any other judge that has heard matters related to the case.This advance notice helps the court assign cases and ensure judge availability on the parties’ desired dates. When a practitioner fails to comply with this rule, it becomes difficult for the court to make a judge available to hear the case. The best way to ensure a judge will be able to hear a case of longer duration or on a Friday is to comply with this notice requirement.
4. Practitioners should carefully consider whether a complex case designation is appropriate and whether it best suits the needs of the parties, lawyers and witnesses before making the request. When a civil case is designated “complex,” the parties must coordinate trial dates with the assigned judge’s calendar. Because the judges rotate to different assignments, the judge assigned to a complex case may not be available for trial on the dates preferred by the parties. If a case is not designated as complex, the presiding judge has greater flexibility to find a judge available on the trial date that works best for the parties and witnesses. Pretrial case management of complicated civil cases that are not designated “complex” will be handled by the assigned motions judge. Where possible, the presiding judge will assign the trial to the assigned motions judge because the motions judge may be more familiar with the issues presented in the case.

Updates from Barbara Marcille, Trial Court Administrator

Remember that new SLRs went into effect February 1. The new SLRs are available on the court’s website and the MBA website. A CLE seminar addressing the changes to the SLRs is anticipated for April. There are considerable changes to sections addressing juvenile and family law, largely intended to clarify and avoid redundancy within those sections.

The MBA sponsored a successful legislative breakfast on December 4. The breakfast was a good opportunity to connect with legislators and other community leaders on important updates from the court.

Interviews are underway for a referee to replace Referee Steven Todd, who retired at the end of 2019.

Joseph S. Hagedorn will be the new Juvenile Referee to fill the vacancy created when Morgan Long became a Circuit Court Judge.

The new Central Courthouse is working in conjunction with the sheriff ’s office to determine whether it will be necessary for attorneys to obtain new badges that will work in the new courthouse. It is likely that new badges will have to be issued, but more information should be forthcoming as the new system is finalized.

Additional Updates

Practitioners should be sure to confirm the location of hearings; one practitioner appeared at the East County Courthouse for a docket matter being held in the downtown courthouse.

The MBA Court Liaison Committee is developing a CLE seminar on technology in the new courthouse. It is anticipated the CLE will occur in the spring and will include information from the court’s technology manager.

In November 2019, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters adopted a new trial court rule prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from carrying out arrests without judicial warrants in state courthouses.

By enacting UTCR 3.190, Oregon became the third state in the nation to adopt such a rule, preceded by New York and New Jersey. In Massachusetts and Washington state, lawsuits are pending, challenging warrantless ICE arrests in courthouses. Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will soon file an amicus brief in support of the Washington litigation.

For state immigrants’ rights organizations, UTCR 3.190 was a victory over two years in the making. In the materials submitted to the Chief Justice and the UTCR Committee, many advocates and attorneys emphasized that the judicial system was being undermined by allowing warrantless arrests in state facilities.

“Adopting this rule protects the integrity of the state judicial process and will allow state courts to fully hold accountable people accused of a crime,” Walters said. “Arrests in courthouses have interfered with judicial proceedings and removed criminal defendants before they have been sentenced or completed their sentences. We are adopting this rule to maintain the integrity of our courts and provide access to justice - not to advance or oppose any political or policy agenda.”

To understand how UTCR 3.190 is vital to preserving the integrity of the judicial process today, it is important to understand the political moment that brought about this rule.

In 2017, emboldened by anti-immigrant rhetoric and executive orders issued by the Trump Administration, ICE began to ramp up immigration enforcement - making courthouses an increasingly common location for civil arrests.

Courthouses were excluded from the list of “sensitive locations” (such as churches, schools, and hospitals) where ICE officers are generally prohibited from carrying out arrests. Legislation sponsored by Oregon congressional members to classify courthouses as sensitive locations failed to advance in Congress.

Responding to the uptick in courthouse arrests by ICE, in April 2017, then-Chief Justice Thomas Balmer requested that ICE cease carrying out arrests in Oregon’s courthouses, describing the chilling effect the ICE presence had on “not only undocumented residents, but also those who are uncertain about the implications of their immigration or residency status or are close family, friends, or neighbors of undocumented residents.” Balmer was one of many chief justices across the country to petition ICE.

Rather than limit courthouse immigration enforcement, in January 2018, ICE issued a directive that codified the practice, suggesting it be used as a tool to carry out arrests in jurisdictions that “refuse to cooperate with ICE.” The directive also called for ICE officers to act “discreetly.”

In Oregon, plainclothes officers patrolled courthouses, often declining to identify themselves to legal observers or show warrants when making arrests. In April 2019, a defense attorney recorded on camera the arrest of his client as they left a courtroom. But for the badges hanging around the officers’ necks, they look like ordinary people - one is dressed in a plaid button-down shirt, the other in a blue polo. The attorney is audibly dumbfounded as courthouse security looks on, nobody intervening to verify the ICE officers had any warrant, judicial or “administrative.”

A survey conducted by Causa Oregon and Innovation Law Lab, two prominent immigrants’ rights organizations, found that the increased ICE presence in courthouses was resulting in individuals failing to appear at courthouses and declining to report crimes or pursue legal remedies. This is echoed in then-Chief Justice Balmer’s letter to ICE in 2017 and Chief Justice Walters’ letter in 2019 where they both cited the deterrent effect of ICE presence in our state courthouses.

The petition for the rule additionally offered many firsthand accounts of how these courthouse arrests were impacting Oregonians:

• A minor chose not to report a sexual assault by a neighbor or seek a civil protection order for fear her undocumented family members could be deported if they had to appear in court for any reason.
• An employee injured at work refused to pursue a legal remedy against his employer for fear that the process would expose his legal status and make him a target for arrest by ICE.
• A victim of theft who was subpoenaed as a witness against the perpetrator agonized over the decision of whether to not appear and be held in contempt of court or to testify and risk arrest by ICE.

Accounts like these form the backdrop for UTCR 3.190, which plainly states: “No person may subject an individual to civil arrest without a judicial warrant or judicial order when the individual is in a courthouse or within the environs of a courthouse.” Environs include public entryways, sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas intended to serve state courthouses.

“Since the first day of the Trump administration, ICE has terrorized immigrant communities across the country, even entering into sensitive locations like courthouses and places of worship,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer. “I’ve advanced legislation to prohibit this type of behavior and humanize immigration policy nationally. I’m pleased that the Oregon Supreme Court is leading the way by preserving the sanctity of our courthouses.”

Courthouses are the very embodiment of our justice system. Whether an individual comes to court to stand trial for a crime, to support a loved one at a difficult time, or to seek a remedy for a wrong committed against them, all should feel secure in a courthouse.

The new rule is an important first step in ensuring Oregon’s courthouses are open to all who seek justice. The next step will be holding ICE accountable if the rule is tested.

Victoria Bejarano Muirhead and Roberto Gutierrez are law students at Lewis & Clark. Until recently, they worked at organizations that were part of the coalition that advocated to keep ICE out of Oregon’s courthouses. Victoria was Director of Strategic Initiatives at Innovation Law Lab and Roberto was Policy Director at Causa Oregon.