skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Oregon Legal Ethics

VI. PUBLIC SERVICE

6.1   Rule 6.1 Pro Bono Public Service

6.1:100   Comparative Analysis of Oregon Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.1, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary: EOL ch 2

6.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

The DRs do not include a counterpart to MR 6.1. However, the Oregon State Bar Statement of Professionalism § 4.4 provides that an Oregon attorney “will endeavor to increase our participation in pro bono activities . . . will help lawyers recognize their obligation to make legal services available to all members of society.”

6.1:102      Model Code Comparison

The ABA Model Code does not have a counterpart to MR 6.1. EC 2-25 states that the “basic responsibility for providing legal services for those unable to pay ultimately rests upon the individual lawyer . . . . Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional workload, should find time to participate in serving the disadvantaged.” EC 8-9 states that “[t]he advancement of our legal system is of vital importance in maintaining the rule of law and . . . lawyers should encourage, and should aid in making, needed changes and improvements.” EC 8-3 states that “[t]hose persons unable to pay for legal services should be provided needed services.”

6.1:200   Lawyer's Moral Obligation to Engage in Public Interest Legal Service

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.1, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:6001, ALI-LGL § , Wolfram § 16.9
OR Commentary:

6.2   Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments

6.2:100   Comparative Analysis of Oregon Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary:

6.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

The DRs do not include a counterpart to MR 6.2.

6.2:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no counterpart to MR 6.2 in the DRs of the ABA Model Code. EC 2-29 states that when a lawyer is “appointed by a court or requested by a bar association to undertake representation of a person unable to obtain counsel, whether for financial or other reasons, he should not seek to be excused from undertaking the representation except for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons do not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved in the case, the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a criminal proceeding is guilty, or the belief of the lawyer regarding the merits of the civil case.” (Footnotes omitted.) EC 2-30 states that “a lawyer should decline employment if the intensity of his personal feeling, as distinguished from a community attitude, may impair his effective representation of a prospective client.” (Footnotes omitted.)

6.2:200   Duty to Accept Court Appointments Except for Good Cause

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:6201, ALI-LGL § 14, Wolfram § 16.9
OR Commentary:

6.3   Rule 6.3 Membership in Legal Services Organization

6.3:100   Comparative Analysis of Oregon Rule

Primary OR References: DR 5-108(C)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary:

6.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

Similar to MR 6.3, DR 5-108(C)(1)(b) requires a lawyer who is a member of the board of directors or advisory committee of an Oregon legal aid program to “refrain[ ] from voting on or engaging in any board or committee discussions involving matters which might involve a potential conflict of interest.” DR 5-108(C)(1) also specifies additional duties for the lawyer in such a situation. DR 5-108(C)(3) prohibits the lawyer committee/board member from influencing or trying to influence actions of the legal aid service in order to benefit a client or the lawyer’s firm. Unlike MR 6.3, DR 5-108(C)(2) addresses the committee/board member conflict-of-interest scenario in the context of a lawyer who is employed by a legal aid program.

6.3:102      Model Code Comparison

The ABA Model Code does not include a counterpart to MR 6.3.

6.3:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in a Legal Services Organization

Primary OR References: DR 5-108(C)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:6401, ALI-LGL § 135, Wolfram § 16.7.4
OR Commentary: EOL § 11.6

DR 5-108(C)(1) provides that a lawyer who is a member of the board of directors or advisory committee of an Oregon legal aid program can represent a client in a proceeding in which the legal aid program represents the opposing party, if the lawyer and the lawyer’s law firm do not or do not attempt to influence the professional judgment of the legal aid attorneys, refrain from participating in any legal aid matters that might involve potential conflicts of interest, disclose to the client the lawyer’s relationship with the legal aid program, and obtain the client’s consent to continue representation.

DR 5-108(C)(2) provides that a lawyer employed by an Oregon legal aid program can represent a client in a proceeding in which the opposing party is represented by a member of the board of directors or advisory committee of the legal aid program, if the legal aid lawyer does not allow his or her professional judgment to be influenced, the lawyer discloses to the client the opposing lawyer’s relationship with the legal aid program, and the lawyer obtains the client’s consent to continue the representation.

DR 5-108(C)(3) prohibits a lawyer who is a member of the board of directors or advisory committee of any Oregon legal aid program to “influence or attempt to influence actions of the legal aid program” so as to benefit that lawyer’s client or firm “differently in kind or degree from members of the general public.”

6.4   Rule 6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests

6.4:100   Comparative Analysis of Oregon Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.4, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary:

6.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

The DRs do not include a counterpart to MR 6.4.

6.4:102      Model Code Comparison

Like the DRs, the ABA Model Code does not include a counterpart to this rule.

6.4:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in Law Reform Organizations

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.4, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:6401, Wolfram § 13.8
OR Commentary:

6.5   Rule 6.5 Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Service Programs

6.5:100   Comparative Analysis of Oregon Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

MR 6.5 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

Rule 6.5 is a new Rule in response to the Commission's concern that a strict application of the conflict-of-interest rules may be deterring lawyers from serving as volunteers in programs in which clients are provided short-term limited legal services under the auspices of a nonprofit organization or a court-annexed program. The paradigm is the legal-advice hotline or pro se clinic, the purpose of which is to provide short-term limited legal assistance to persons of limited means who otherwise would go unrepresented.

6.5:101      Model Rule Comparison

Oregon has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:200   Scope of Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary:

Oregon has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:300   Special Conflict of Interest Rule

Primary OR References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:
OR Commentary:

Oregon has not adopted the new model rule.