10.05.2014 Views

February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar

February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar

February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

OREGON STATE BAR<br />

Board of Governors Agenda<br />

Meeting Date: <strong>February</strong> <strong>22</strong>, <strong>2013</strong><br />

From:<br />

Sylvia E. Stevens, Executive Director<br />

Re:<br />

Proposal to Amend <strong>Oregon</strong>’s Advertising Rules<br />

Action Recommended<br />

Consider the Legal Ethics Committee’s recommendation to submit amendments to<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong>’s advertising rules to the HOD in November <strong>2013</strong>.<br />

Background<br />

In August 2009, a BOG-appointed Advertising Task Force presented its report and<br />

recommendations for sweeping changes in <strong>Oregon</strong>’s rules governing lawyer advertising and<br />

solicitation. The Task Force’s conclusions and recommendations were premised on its<br />

understanding of the limits that can be placed on commercial speech under the <strong>Oregon</strong><br />

Constitution and its most significant proposed change was elimination of the prohibition on inperson<br />

solicitation. In the face of strenuous objection from the <strong>Oregon</strong> Trial Lawyers<br />

Association, the BOG accepted the Task Force report but took no action on the<br />

recommendations.<br />

At the 2010 HOD meeting, a resolution to conform <strong>Oregon</strong>’s RPCs on advertising to the<br />

Washington rules was defeated, principally because delegates felt they didn’t have enough<br />

information about the effect of the changes. During the discussion, several members suggested<br />

that the issue was something the bar should study, not only to accommodate lawyers who<br />

practice in both <strong>Oregon</strong> and Washington, but also because increased reciprocity means more<br />

lawyers will be practice in different states and will benefit from more uniformity in regulation.<br />

In <strong>February</strong> 2011, at the recommendation of the Policy and Governance Committee, the<br />

BOG directed the Legal Ethics Committee to study and make recommendations to the BOG<br />

regarding conforming <strong>Oregon</strong>’s advertising rules to those of our neighboring states. After nearly<br />

two years of work, the LEC submitted its preliminary recommendations to the BOG at its June<br />

2012 meeting. The BOG discussed the Committee’s recommendations and suggested that<br />

members of OTLA and other interested members have an opportunity to comment on the<br />

proposed changes before they BOG decides whether to put them before the HOD for a vote.<br />

Between June 2012 and <strong>February</strong> <strong>2013</strong>, the LEC continued to refine its proposal to assure that it<br />

retained provisions that addressed unique aspects of practice in <strong>Oregon</strong>. If the BOG approves<br />

the amendments now proposed by the LEC, there is ample time to present them to the<br />

membership for a “comment period” before the HOD meeting in November 2012.<br />

<strong>Oregon</strong>’s current rule are based on the former ABA Model Code that was promulgated<br />

in 1970. The rules were amended at various times over the ensuing 35 years as court decisions<br />

relaxed the limits on lawyer advertising and solicitation. In 2005, when <strong>Oregon</strong> adopted <strong>Oregon</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!