Latest News

The OSB Statement of Professionalism (as adopted by the OSB House of Delegates and approved by the Supreme Court of Oregon effective December 12, 2011) includes the following proclamation – “I will be courteous and respectful to my clients, to adverse litigants and adverse counsel, and to the court.”

In life, there are only some things we can control, and punctuality is one of them. Many lawyers struggle with punctuality; however, when we’re late for a meeting or a phone call, what percentage of the time is it genuinely an issue beyond our control? Certainly, it’s a very small percentage. If we take honest stock of how lawyers tend to behave, we find that almost always lawyers are late because we don’t plan well enough. We departed too late for our destination, we didn’t enforce time boundaries earlier in the day, we tried to squeeze too many tasks into a single day, or we failed to set realistic expectations. Because punctuality is one of the most basic tenets of professionalism and social etiquette, effective lawyers must make it a priority.

In the legal world, the quality of promptitude is arguably more important for courteousness than the use of the correct prefixes and surname pronunciations. Aside from the lost (and perhaps most basic) opportunity to exhibit courtesy and respect by arriving on time for any lawyerly act, tardiness may be perceived as incompetence, disorganization, a lack of discipline, and insecurity.

Lateness may also reflect fluster and a compromised ability to manage stress and prioritize time, people, pressures, and commitments. Lateness creates a negative external impression in people outside of your office, and it lowers morale among your colleagues and staff when they can’t trust your word about when you’ll be somewhere, or when a meeting will start. As the saying goes: “Time is a precious gift we give, but too often waste.” Tardiness breeds wasted precious operational capital. It could place an unnecessary strain on a professional’s negotiating power, or cause a lost opportunity to shine. (The most obvious example may be a late reply brief rejected for consideration by the court, or a delayed return call to a potential new client who finds her counsel elsewhere.) More fundamentally, lateness is often perceived as just plain rude.

While some lawyers (litigators in particular) may enjoy the adrenaline rush that comes from cutting it close, and struggle to complete a task unless there’s a mini crisis looming on the horizon, the late lawyer is almost never the most prepared or conscientious lawyer. To honor our commitment to professionalism, experienced lawyers should exhibit and mentor others to keep these punctuality tips in mind:

1. Know Why You Want to Be Punctual.
Consider your reasons and motivation to build a habit of punctuality. Like any good lawyer often does, create a list of action items. Write down the risks of lateness and the benefits of punctuality. Your list may include:

• Punctuality reduces stress and friction with your adversaries, staff and partners. None among us enjoys waiting for others.
• Punctuality builds trust. Clients will feel their counsel is more competent to handle competing deadlines and pressures, and decisionmakers will view you as more credible.
• Punctuality signals to others, as well as to yourself, that you are reliable and organized.

2. Make it a Priority to Be Prompt, and Early.
If you tend to be chronically late, own it and perhaps recognize it as your own Achilles’ heel. Strive to be always early. Realize that lateness is not a cute or quirky character trait. Instead, it’s an unprofessional habit that negatively impacts your career, business, and other relationships. Commit to kick the habit and become more reliably punctual.

3. Promote a Punctual Culture.
Recognize punctuality as a right and obligation. Avoid hypocrisy by requiring of your staff only the level of punctuality that you consistently demonstrate. Surround yourself with colleagues and staff that share your respect for promptness. Start and end meetings on time. Hold your staff and committee members accountable when they demonstrate tardiness and invite them to do the same for you.

Simply thinking about punctuality will inspire us to recognize that we have better control of our time. Professionalism includes the gracious exercise of that control - whether by the simple act of reliably returning calls to opposing counsel, meeting client or courtimposed deadlines, or arriving punctually to court proceedings. In doing so, you serve your professional obligation to “be courteous and respectful to … clients, to adverse litigants and adverse counsel, and to the court.”
 

The Corner Office is a recurring feature of the Multnomah Lawyer and is intended to promote the discussion of professionalism taking place among lawyers in our community and elsewhere. While The Corner Office cannot promise to answer every question submitted, its intent is to respond to questions that raise interesting professionalism concerns and issues. Please send your questions to mba@mbabar.org and indicate that you would like The Corner Office to answer your question. Questions may be submitted anonymously.

Dear Expert,
I am a new attorney working at my first job at a small firm. Other attorneys in the firm have referred a few cases to me and we do some marketing. However, I would like to bring in more clients on my own. What are some things I can personally do to market myself at little or no cost?

-Wanting Clients
 

Dear Wanting Clients,

In law school, you spent a lot of time learning how to conduct legal research and write a proper legal memorandum, but very few new attorneys learned much, if anything, about how to market themselves as attorneys, which is an important part of practicing law if you want to be successful. While other attorneys in your firm can refer cases to you and help you with some marketing, there are many things you can personally do to get your name out there. I like to break marketing up into two categories: online marketing and in-person marketing.

The internet is how many people find attorneys these days, so it is important that you have a strong online presence. When you are thinking of going to a new restaurant, you probably like to read customer reviews online. The same is true for potential clients searching for an attorney. There are many websites that have attorney reviews. If you have a positive experience with a client, you can ask them if they would be willing to post an online review when their case is complete. The more positive reviews you obtain, the more you will stand out to a potential client searching online.

If your firm does not already have an online blog or newsletter, talk to the other attorneys in your office and see if this is something they would be interested in doing. Blogs and newsletters are a great way to not only get your name out there, but to show off your knowledge. Oftentimes, when people have a legal problem, they search for answers online. If you can create a blog that addresses many of the questions that your clients have, potential clients searching the internet will see you as an expert in the area and will appreciate the answers you have provided.

While the internet is a great way to market yourself and attract clients, it is also important to make in-person connections. A great first step is to get involved in your local bar association. Other attorneys can be a great referral source because they often get asked for referrals by clients, friends, and family members. When you meet another attorney, make sure to give them a business card, tell them about your area of practice, and let them know you would appreciate any referrals.
Also, consider your practice area and how to reach potential clients. For example, if you do elder law, is there a local senior center that would allow you to do a free presentation? If you do family law, is there a local divorce group that you could address? Think of groups that would be most likely to need your legal services and find ways to speak to those groups.

Lastly, get involved in a local organization that you feel passionate about. I know being a new lawyer can be demanding and it’s not always easy to find time to volunteer; however, getting involved in your community is a wonderful way to meet others and make personal connections in your community. Oftentimes, these personal connections can lead to referrals. Also, volunteer work is a great way to stay sane while still practicing law!

Trevor Caldwell, a former US Army Combat Veteran, was inspired to serve during his senior year of high school following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Trevor enlisted in the Army following his graduation from the university of Portland in 2006, and completed four overseas deployments as a Field Artillery Officer prior to leaving active duty to attend the university of Oregon Law School in 2012. In addition to working as an attorney in the Office of the State Judge Advocate General (JAG), Trevor serves on the
OSB Military and Veterans Law Section Executive Committee and directs the Wills for heroes Clinic for the YLS Pro Bono Committee.

Despite living and working around the country and abroad during his time in the Army (and a study abroad trip to Austria during undergrad), Trevor has always considered the Pacific Northwest home. He was born in Oregon and lived in both Oregon and Washington while growing up. Following the September 11 attacks, Trevor planned to enlist in the Marines as soon as he was able. However, an ROTC Scholarship to the University of Portland changed that plan: Trevor enlisted in the Army with his undergrad degree four years later. Trevor remains an active member of the Oregon National Guard.

Trevor began his law school career with an interest in business transactions, but was inspired by a labor law class he took as a 3L to seek a position with an employment law firm. Trevor credits the valuable time management, organization, and discipline skills he learned in the Army with his success in
law school and as an attorney. During his time at the University of Oregon Law School, Trevor completed an externship with the Oregon State Treasury in 2015, acted as the Veteran’s Affairs Staff Assistant to Congressman Peter DeFazio from 2013 to 2014, and also completed a Wayne Morris Fellowship with the Office of Senator Ron Wyden in 2013.

When Trevor is not busy passionately representing individuals in employment law matters at Barran Liebman, LLP, he enjoys spending time with his family and pursuing all of the outdoor experiences that the Pacific Northwest has to offer. Trevor and his wife will welcome their second child in the fall. He credits the Army for teaching him to function so well as a parent and attorney - while also getting very little sleep.

Terms Begin June 1

YLS President-Elect is Brad Krupicka, of Littler Mendelson, where he specializes in employment law and civil litigation. He joined the board in 2016, and presently serves as secretary as well as the YLS Board Liaison to the MBA Professionalism Committee.

Brad’s MBA involvement began in 2011, when he joined and later chaired the MBA Membership Committee. Since that time, he has participated on the MBA Court Funding Committee and acted as the YLS Pro Bono Committee Liaison to the LASO/OLC/MBA Pro Bono Committee. He served on and later chaired the YLS Pro Bono Committee.

Brad is a member of the CEJ Associates Committee, the Lewis & Clark Law School Alumni Board and the American Constitution Society Board. He was also one of the founders of the Multnomah County Circuit Court Volunteer Researchers Program, the MBA Battle of the Lawyer Bands, and the YLS Pro Bono Pour.
 



YLS Secretary is Kirsten Rush, of Busse & hunt, where she practices employment law. Kirsten joined the board in 2017, and presently serves as treasurer as well as the YLS Board Liaison to the YLS Pro Bono Committee.

Kirsten served on the YLS Service to the Public (STP) Committee from 2013-15, chaired the committee for the 2015-16 term, and continues to volunteer with STP’s Imprint Program.

Outside of the MBA, Kirsten serves as a mentor and professionalism discussion leader for incoming law school classes at her alma mater, and is also a member of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and Oregon Women Lawyers.
 



YLS Treasurer is Anaiah Palmer. She practices immigration law at Parker, Butte & Lane PC. Anaiah is a graduate of Lewis & Clark Law School, and joined the board in 2017.

Anaiah joined the YLS Membership Committee in 2014, and later served as the committee chair. She presently acts as YLS Board Liaison to the YLS CLE Committee.

In addition to her work with the YLS, Anaiah is an active member of the Oregon Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and is presently serving as Chapter Secretary. She regularly participates in various Citizenship Days, Refugee Adjustment Days and similar workshops organized by AILA and other nonprofi ts.

Presiding Judge’s Report - Judge Stephen Bushong

Justice Reinvestment
The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission held a Justice Reinvestment Summit in Salem February 13-15. About 1,400 people from across the state attended. Governor Brown offered some opening remarks, and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees held their sessions at the summit. Oregon’s justice reinvestment program, established through legislation, involves allocating funding that would otherwise need to be spent on building more prisons and “reinvesting” those funds in community-based programming including intensive supervision, treatment and other resources. The attendees learned about the correctional system in Norway, which has a population similar in size to Oregon, though Norway has only about 2,000 people in prison compared to 14,000 in Oregon. In Norway, the deprivation of liberty that results from incarceration is the only punishment, and inmates are taught how to be good neighbors from day one. Oregon recently sent a delegation, including the Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, to Norway to learn more about the Norwegian system. Attendees at the summit also learned about treatment courts, pretrial release, supervision, and other programs. Ideas shared at the summit could lead to some reforms in Oregon.

Civil Case Management
Courts across the state are in the process of implementing recommendations from the Civil Justice Improvement Task Force. One of the key recommendations requires courts to set firm trial dates. Trial dates are set in this county at a Trial Readiness Conference (TRC). Attorneys should come to a TRC ready to pick a trial date that works for all attorneys, parties, experts and other witnesses. Attorneys should avoid spring break (week of March 25th this year) and the statewide judicial conference (week of October 21st this year). If trial is expected to last five days or longer, under SLR 7.055(14), attorneys must send a letter to presiding court six weeks in advance and request an early assignment to a trial judge. Under those circumstances, attorneys should not wait until the scheduled “call” date and report “ready” for a five-day (or longer) trial. Failing to comply with this rule makes it difficult for the court to find an available trial judge. Under SLR 7.016, the parties must participate in an appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) process if the case is not resolved within one year from the date the complaint was filed (or six months from the filing of a third-party complaint), whichever is later. Attorneys must also file a Certificate of Compliance with the ADR requirement. Under subsection 4 of SLR 7.016, parties must participate in ADR in good faith; failing to do so could subject a party to sanctions.

Once a trial date is set, it can be postponed or setover only for “good cause” at a scheduling conference with the presiding judge under SLR 7.025. Attorneys should not request a setover at ex parte or morning call. “Good cause” means something that could not have been anticipated when the parties chose a trial date at a TRC. The need to conduct more discovery or engage in further settlement discussions ordinarily will not be considered “good cause” for a trial setover. Under SLR 7.056, day-of-trial setovers must be presented to the presiding judge; the assigned trial judge does not have the authority to consider a day-of trial setover. Attorneys have sometimes asked why the court cares if a civil case is not set for trial within one year. UTCR 7.020(5) establishes the one-year-to trial rule for civil cases (other than designated complex cases, which must be set for trial within two years under UTCR 7.030(4)). The reason for that rule, adopted many years ago by the UTCR Committee, is that litigants, attorneys, and the business community want the justice system to resolve cases quickly, thereby keeping the cost of litigation down. In addition, the court has established “time to- disposition” standards that require the court to resolve 90 percent of civil cases within one year, and 98 percent within two years. The Oregon legislature expects the judicial branch to meet its established performance standards. The court is calling upon attorneys to manage their practices to comply with the UTCRs and help the court meet its time-to-disposition standards.

Things Attorneys Can Do Better
At ex parte, attorneys sometimes will ask the judge to sign an order without submitting a motion. Under UTCR 2.010 (12), attorneys must submit a motion - even a stipulated motion - with a proposed order, and the motion must be a separate document from the order.
Show cause hearings are typically placed on the call docket, absent unusual circumstances. A motion for an order to show cause should be supported by a declaration or affidavit, and the order should include a space for the call date on the day before the actual show cause hearing. The judge and courtroom will be assigned at call. Most show cause hearings are set for a Friday, with call on Thursday. Attorneys should select a call and hearing date that gives them sufficient time to serve the order on the opposing party at least five days in advance of the hearing. Motions for an order to show cause should be presented to the presiding judge even if a motions judge has been assigned to the case.

Miscellaneous
Not all judges are available to conduct judicial settlement conferences (JSCs) in civil cases. The court’s website includes a list of judges who may be available to conduct JSCs in civil cases. The court does not maintain a master calendar of judges’ availability for JSCs; attorneys will need to contact the judge’s chambers directly. Most JSCs in civil cases will take a half-day. If more time is needed due to the
complexity of the case, attorneys should consider selecting a private mediator.
Judge Bushong reported that there have been 13 jury trials in civil cases in January-February. The Chief Civil Judge keeps track of jury trials in civil cases. In recent years, the court has averaged about 100 civil jury trials per year. About 70-80 percent of the civil jury trials in recent years have been personal injury cases. Chief Civil Judge John Wittmayer retired at the end of February; the new Chief Civil Judge is Judge Chris Marshall.
The Multnomah County Sheriff ’s Office has announced reductions in its “Close Street
Supervision” (CSS) program in criminal cases. The sheriff ’s office expected to supervise about 100 individuals released pre-trial under the CSS program, but CSS is currently attempting to supervise nearly 300 individuals. This has led the sheriff ’s office to reduce services available under the CSS program.

Courthouse Update - Barbara Marcille, Trial Court Administrator

The judicial branch is seeking bond funding approval from the Legislative Assembly this session to complete the new courthouse. The final request - for $9.25 million - will cover furniture, technology, and moving expenses. Judge Nan Waller and Trial Court Administrator Barb Marcille have been coordinating with Presiding Judge Bushong, Chief Justice Walters and State Court Administrator Nancy Cozine on the last funding package needed for the new courthouse.

A Courthouse users Group meeting will occur in April to begin planning for the actual move into the new courthouse. The logistics for moving the entire court will be complicated, especially when the actual moving date is yet unknown. Currently, the court expects the move to take place in May or June 2020, and expects to firm up the move date later this summer.

Every day we see the progress on the new courthouse. It has been topped off, the windows are going in and its completion date is almost around the corner. It is going to be a beautiful building! What is not visible, but will be equally exciting for our community, is the planning underway to improve the experience for lawyers, litigants, and the public in how business is conducted inside the building. Among the many improvements in the new courthouse will be small conference rooms outside of every courtroom that can be used by lawyers, litigants, and the public so that negotiations or attorney/client discussions do not occur on hallway benches as they must in the current courthouse. In the lobby there will be monitors to direct litigants and lawyers to the right courtrooms and an information booth staffed by court personnel when people need additional information. Separate hallway and elevator systems will allow defendants in custody to be transported to courtrooms without being paraded through the public hallways in shackles. The public service counters will be consolidated into one area with the goal of reducing wait times and providing better customer service. The CourtCare space will be much larger and will accommodate more children allowing them to be spared from courtroom trauma, drama, or boredom.

One of the highlights of the new building will be the Legal Resource Center (LRC) that will focus on providing procedural help and education to self represented litigants (SRLs) across all case types as well as providing the resources for legal research. At least one side is unrepresented in over 85 percent of family law cases. Both sides are unrepresented in a majority of small claims and landlord/tenant cases, and in other civil cases, one side is unrepresented in close to a quarter of the cases. The number of SRLs trying to navigate the justice system is a tremendous challenge to access to justice. While the ideal would be that all litigants have access to a lawyer, and while we applaud the multiple efforts of the Bar to fill the gap, we know that volunteer efforts cannot meet the demands. To that end, in designing the new courthouse, we included a Legal Resource Center with a goal of providing procedural assistance to SRLs across all case types. Last year the Oregon Legislature gave us the green light for creating a LRC by passing a bill that expanded the court's authority to use court facilitators in all case types and allowing Multnomah County to use law library funds for a LRC.

Our plan is that the LRC will provide educational opportunities, assistance with legal research, and facilitators who can provide procedural assistance and referrals as well as help filling out forms correctly. The focus will be on meeting the needs of SRLs but the center will serve the legal community and general public as well. Basic legal research materials will be available online to lawyers and the public. And hard (book) copies of current statutes will be readily accessible if needed. Knowing that people learn in different ways, we anticipate holding workshops on basic legal concepts - what is a complaint? What is an answer? How is service accomplished? Our goal is to have a multitude of ways to assist SRLs.

We would not have gotten this far without solid support from access to justice partners - the MBA, the OSB, the legal aid community, and Multnomah County leadership. And while the move to the new courthouse won’t happen until mid-2020, we plan to get started in the next few months by developing staffing and resources.

“Network, network, network!” Many of us are familiar with the importance of networking, particularly when searching for a job. Although there is little dispute networking is a vital aspect of the legal field - or any professional field - many newer attorneys feel uncomfortable when attending events specifically organized for the purpose of networking. Much of this discomfort can be reduced by simply framing what it means to “network” in a different way. Below are a few of the biggest networking mistakes new lawyers often make and how to avoid them in the future and make the networking aspect of your career more valuable.
 

1. Failing to keep in touch with one’s growing network

Picture this: you attend an event, meet a few people, hand out a few business cards, and go home. You completed the task and networked, right? Wrong. Networking does not start and end with attending and leaving an event. Making the initial acquaintance with a fellow professional is only the beginning.
What makes the networking process meaningful and valuable (and enjoyable) is maintaining relationships with your existing network and building off of them. Not only that, if you are one of the many who feels uncomfortable going into a situation not knowing anyone, future events will be far less daunting since you will have kept up your existing relationships. Portland is a small community; you will inevitably see people you have met before. Take advantage of this by keeping in touch with the people you meet and the benefits will follow.
 

2. Expecting immediate results

Patience is a virtue when it comes to networking. During one’s job search especially, it may be discouraging not to reap benefits immediately as a result of networking, but building relationships takes time. Introducing yourself and having a pleasant initial conversation is just the tip of the iceberg, and it is important to not give off the impression you are only attending an event to meet people who can do something for you. Take the time to form valuable relationships – invite people to lunch, coffee or happy hour, send thank you notes, or ask your new contacts if they are willing to host an informational interview - and the results will follow naturally.
 

3. Lacking authenticity and/or feigning interest

It can be easy to fall into a pattern of asking and answering the same questions of every person at networking events without taking into consideration what the other person is actually offering or saying to you. Avoid “going through the motions.” Odds are, even if you are only interacting with attorneys at local networking events, every person you meet has a different story and different pathway, and it is very likely you will have something unique in common with different people. Maybe both of you are employment law attorneys, Blazers fans, or wine connoisseurs. We have all been in a position where the person we are talking to either lacks interest in what we are saying or is clearly only saying what they think they are “supposed to” say in a certain environment. At the end of the day, our fellow attorneys are human and are interested in forming honest relationships and friendships built on a foundation of common ground.
 

4. Getting too personal or not being personal enough

There is a fine balance between asking too many personal questions or sharing too much personal information and not being genuine. Remember that what makes you “you” is not only your job. Make yourself memorable by giving the person you are meeting an idea of who you are outside of your job by discussing your hobbies and outside interests. At the same time, when getting to know them, do not be too invasive. Asking whether someone is single or married might give off the wrong idea. Mastering professionalism while remembering you are a person with interests beyond your job is vital.
 

5. Waiting until the job search.

Networking should not be viewed as something only to be used when you need the benefits immediately. By now it is clear the mantra of this article is that networking is about building relationships. A relationship takes time. Waiting to connect with your professional community until you are searching for a job or new opportunities is likely to lead to frustration and disappointment. Too many recent law school graduates and mid-level associates seeking new opportunities attend events with the idea they will meet the one person they need to meet who will lead them to success and happiness. On the contrary, the people who actually make the most of networking by building meaningful relationships early on are the ones who are more likely to see an increased pool of opportunity when their job search begins.

Above all, be yourself and enjoy the process. With the right mindset and skills, networking can be one of the most useful, worthwhile, and rewarding aspects of an attorney’s career.

This is not an article about us as lawyers, about the legal system or how and what we can do to help clients to navigate the justice system. For this issue, I intended to write an article about the need for Portland lawyers to support the court system and the need for us to lobby for additional funding so that the courts can function to serve all Oregonians, which we should - but recent news has derailed my efforts. Instead, this article is my attempt to reflect upon and try to understand the world we live in.              

By the time this article is published the news cycle will have moved on, and the latest tragedy will be old news, but as I write I am feeling helpless as I read and listen to the stories coming out of New Zealand.  Fifty dead and many injured at two mosques. I wonder what it would feel to lose my son like some mothers did yesterday. What it would be like to be the target of so much hatred, just because of how I worship, and for my life to be meaningless to some. What makes all of this worse is there is an upward trend in this racist, bigoted, white supremacist violence. This is not the first morning I am crying over senseless mass death. The Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, the Charleston church shooting, the  Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, just a few of the recent places of worship killings, not to mention the school shootings that are too overwhelming even to count; the Orlando club shooting and the killings that occur daily of black, LBGTQ+ and other non-dominant culture human beings. It is not acceptable for us to treat this as a new normal.        
       
A question that keeps coming to mind - what makes someone hate so much? What makes someone believe that they are so much better than another human that someone else has to die? This is “othering” taken to its extreme. Simply because someone is different from us, dresses differently, looks differently, worships differently, speaks differently, therefore they are an inferior human (if they are a human at all) and do not deserve the most basic right there is - to draw their next breath.
I don’t know the answer to the question above. I have never known the answer and I am sure there are many different explanations from smarter 

people than me. I do know that no one is born with the belief that someone who is different from them must be killed. I also know that othering does not happen overnight. It arises from a continuous, systematic attack on the group that it alienates. It can start small - comments here and there - facial expressions when meeting someone different. It is incubated when such behaviors are condoned, when no one speaks up against these behaviors.

As I write, I remember all the times I stood up to othering behavior, but most importantly all the many times I did not. I question and self-reflect on why I did not. Was it too uncomfortable? Would I endanger myself? Did it affect my economic interest? Did it feel too awkward? Would I have been considered too difficult or awkward? In the face of such pain families and communities experience from this othering, none of these reasons are compelling enough to justify not speaking out.

We are all, as lawyers, in a position of trust. The spirit of the MBA Professionalism Statement and our ORPCs require us to actively discourage hateful language and behavior. Many of us live in the “Portland bubble” where we like to believe hatred, bigotry and white supremacy is minimal in our town. The MAX stabbing reminds us of this fallacy. Many in Christchurch thought they lived in a place where “this could not happen.” It happened there and it has happened here. These horrific events are the reason we still need to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion. These horrific events are why, for the most part, during my MBA presidency, the masthead articles have been about the underrepresented voices in our community.

I, for one, pledge to do better - to stand up against othering behavior more and to embrace my community that is being othered more. This pledge is for situations in my personal life and for professional situations I encounter. I hope you join me.

Dear Expert,
My attorney friend approached me about co-counseling a case. We’ve been friends since law school, and
I think it could be fun. What are some considerations I should take into account before deciding?

Co-counseling a case with a friend can be a very rewarding experience, if you are careful. Before you decide you should think about the human factors involved. Is this a friend who you trust? Is this a friend who if something goes south you would be able to work through the issues? If you are not sure, is it worth risking the friendship? These are all personal questions that you should consider, and to which only you and your friend might have the answers.

Another thing to consider is your friend’s quality of work. At the end of the day, you will be responsible for your friend’s work and vice versa. Are you comfortable with that? You may consider looking at any work of theirs that is available on OECI.  

Also consider your friend’s working style. Everyone is different, and sometimes different styles are incompatible (but sometimes they are especially complementary).
For example, some people are chronic procrastinators, others are very organized. You should consider compatibility in all of its permutations. Think back to law school. Did you work on any projects together or study together? How well did it work out? Have you discussed their current law practice, and are you generally on the same page professionally?

Even if you know the answers to all of these questions, do you know any people your friend has co-counseled with before? If you and your friend are comfortable with it, ask them to talk about how it went.

Oregon rule of Professional Conduct (ORPC) 1.5(d) allows for the splitting of fees between lawyers of different firms, but requires the lawyer to get informed consent from the client regarding the fact that fees will be divided, and the total fee charged may not be clearly excessive. Pursuant to ORPC 1.0(g), informed consent requires you to communicate both the risks, and any alternatives of a proposed course of action. Consent need not be in writing, but I recommend it to be. The factors in evaluating whether a fee is excessive are contained in ORPC 1.5(b), and include among other factors the customary fees in the community and skill required.

If you decide to co-counsel, make sure to determine the split of workload, fees, and costs at the outset. Do not assume that everything will be split 50/50. If you are unsure about your agreement, go ahead and put the details in writing, even if it’s an email summarizing the agreement. If things go awry, you will not have to rely on oral discussion or assumptions. One option other than 50/50 is to split the fee based on work put in. Be wary of this sort of arrangement, because sometimes lawyers, maliciously or not, inflate their hours or spend more hours on tasks than they otherwise would. If you do go with this sort of arrangement, it is a good idea to check in regularly with your co-counsel to make sure you are on the same page regarding your relative contributions.

Finally, before you begin, it is a good idea to introduce the client to your co-counsel, in order to make sure that the client feels comfortable with the arrangement.

Materials from the Presiding Court Update CLE seminar that took place on March 14, 2019 are now available. Materials are available for download here.

Class description:
Multnomah County Presiding Judge Stephen K. Bushong, the Chief Judges and court staff presented on the state of the court, review new Supplemental Local Rules, and provided tips on issues unique to practicing in Multnomah County. Judge Bushong also gave an update on the new courthouse, which is scheduled to open in 2020. 

If you would like to purchase the archived webcast of this seminar, please click here.