February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar
February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar
February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar
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>