[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6349278,"mediaKeyId","2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed","parentId",2239093,"title","Committee hears arguments to extend public‑body attorney‑client privilege from 25 to 50 years","audioSeconds",2442,"startMs",1539000,"endMs",3981000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed&start=1539&end=3981","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed/thumbnail_1539000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6349278/Oregon/Committee-hears-arguments-to-extend-publicbody-attorneyclient-privilege-from-25-to-50-years","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349278-55de94539653ba0ed3ecc43366c92ebb/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588055&Signature=j67tQf6yio2yX1v-Az~1LaWl~tnw1va9De2rNHI9Sh~dyHLiXBdqm2oO0embQrNnRzo4fCjIdyzBsJAYv3zEVCVUb6x3fNiddYMywKCWhe04Rw11ZcXo0kg087MPo66n9MKSpBRdF8aD519uk0gYIWrlcqY6sSrL6Cy~scKcvkIgRReUp~7wGHE48I3II7l4AdWuF~MyrlKLbtvZeOxHXYfDhxQ0FuymnN6EUw7fiEERwLqLfDf07OWvu3vMWWpZNahXhzoL5-GR9wEppMEhnb1D-VqLuuETo23n4novq1LH2E-ZZhHsqtKDBGaPTVMoetubmdMURAuuNPMwd5OtZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Oregon","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","Supporters of House Bill 2,533 told the House Committee on Judiciary that extending the time public‑body attorney‑client communications remain exempt from public inspection from 25 years to 50 years is a measured compromise that protects candid legal advice while preserving long‑term public access.

\"Attorney client privilege is vital to the fairness of our justice system,\" said Representative Tom Anderson, the bill's chief sponsor. Jennifer Johnston, senior deputy city attorney for the city of Portland, told the committee that the current 25‑year limitation, which the Oregon Supreme Court recently interpreted in a public‑records case, leaves public bodies at a disadvantage compared with private parties in long‑running litigation. \"Extending the exemption from 25 to 50 years gives people seeking legal advice greater certainty that anything they say to their attorneys will remain confidential,\" Johnston said.

Witnesses for municipal interests, including Scott Winkles of the League of Oregon Cities, said many local disputes and public‑works litigations span decades and that parity with private litigants is necessary for effective public representation. Winkles noted historic long‑running matters, such as water rights litigation, as examples.

Press and public‑records advocates opposed the measure. Greg Peden of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association said Oregon's public‑records law already includes a 25‑year exemption and that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision upheld the balance favoring public access. \"The justices determined that the value of the public records law and the reason why we have the public records law... outweighs the attorney client privilege importance of the evidentiary code,\" Peden said, and urged retention of the current limit. Alan Kessler, an attorney who frequently litigates public‑records cases, warned that some public bodies have overused privilege claims for routine political discussions and urged judges to retain the power to balance public interest through in‑camera review.

Committee members asked whether the bill would affect carve‑outs for fraud or future‑crime communications; both proponents and Jennifer Johnston agreed that attorney‑client privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of a crime. Members also asked about state practice and other states’ approaches; witnesses cited a mix of models, with some states removing time limits or using different exemptions.

No vote was taken during the hearing. Testimony revealed a clear divide: municipal and public‑entity attorneys argued the 50‑year limit is a reasonable compromise to preserve candid legal advice and parity in litigation, while media and open‑government witnesses urged retention of the 25‑year rule or alternative reforms (for example, placing the exemption under a public‑interest balancing test rather than an absolute exemption). The committee closed the public hearing and concluded the day's business.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Judiciary Feb 4, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Supporters of House Bill 2,533 told the House Judiciary committee that extending the confidentiality period for public‑body attorney‑client communications from 25 years to 50 years will protect candid legal advice and help public entities in long‑running litigation.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18092,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349283,"Panel hears bill to clarify what counts toward $750 small‑claims threshold",494,1020000,1514000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed&start=1020&end=1514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed/thumbnail_1020000.jpg","/articles/6349283/Oregon/Panel-hears-bill-to-clarify-what-counts-toward-750-smallclaims-threshold","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349283-b356458eee272392fd20c234171d86ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588055&Signature=KSlR-jR10cgcc499Ta2~91Q5EzqosWMkZGr7oia4Svp~Wc9g9ctYbuhlHtIaf6ebpf67y14f4y3YydGLXpR8rhYSf1g0LaLFV2GodZTU3Cu2Yn~PJcFYSoZooy1P~6XlhEXC2QwlwTaNOkCxA6SrfbM-kZf3DbYvOac8Ju5oug8RKd4BW6ieF2o4Bvk7FwuSAjbq7NKp6f~osXTZ1RjXFH~TjgIYV~jGQQB9ibUAIcz2XFdwGqK9B1eumMs5ARaHC3xOFXkFA4zJG4-l8q5IL6J5zabk14i34538oeK~cmG-9XzmBX6CPQDa1dlqpAQYuSueKCnZPsMYsIEYUIBvlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During a House Judiciary public hearing, witnesses described House Bill 2,463 as a narrow clarification to existing small‑claims law that would explicitly include identified prejudgment or pre‑award interest, fees and costs when calculating whether a claim exceeds $750 for certain small‑claims rights.

\"All this bill does, it adds 9 words to the bill to the existing text,\" said Emily Templeton, a trial attorney in Multnomah County, testifying on behalf of the Consumer Section of the Oregon State Bar. Templeton said courts have been calculating the threshold to include those amounts in practice and that the bill will help pro se defendants understand when the constitutional right to a jury trial can be asserted.

Committee members asked how the clarification works in practice and whether plaintiffs could manipulate filings to transfer cases into circuit court and allow attorney representation. Templeton said plaintiffs may choose to file directly in circuit court even for matters under $750, and that the bill's purpose is to clarify when defendants can assert the right to a jury trial rather than change available forum choices.

The committee also clarified existing small‑claims limits with witnesses: Templeton noted that the maximum jurisdiction for small claims is $10,000 and that attorneys generally are not permitted in small‑claims proceedings absent court approval. Members sought examples of prejudgment or pre‑award costs; Templeton listed common items such as filing fees and process‑server fees.

No formal action or vote was taken; the public hearing closed after testimony from Templeton and committee questioning. The bill as described would add text to two sections of statute (her testimony described adding nine words in each of two sections, for a total of 18 words) to make the calculation explicit for litigants.

The discussion focused on clarity for unrepresented defendants and the interaction between small‑claims practice and the constitutional right to jury trial when monetary thresholds are at issue.","House Bill 2,463 would make explicit that identified prejudgment or pre‑award interest, fees and costs count toward the $750 threshold that affects small‑claims procedural rights, such as the right to request a hearing or a jury trial.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349288,"Committee reviews bill to shorten notice and clarify tech access for remote testimony in civil cases",1011,4000,1015000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed&start=4&end=1015","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2239093-79936be9350233c7c1785522739e47ed/thumbnail_4000.jpg","/articles/6349288/Oregon/Committee-reviews-bill-to-shorten-notice-and-clarify-tech-access-for-remote-testimony-in-civil-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349288-33b5ae06146ff23b83e97020903e6e2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588055&Signature=W3Fz2GsIUxxjtHKFwne92oELIa7iUJFcuxxwf6u3XUl4LBxhEVqkE2INk4FmHWjEQbpzMjd4M3kjASQ-9Sppwb5HcKtkrPiRfq5Fw-t4D8kzJh2Uh87JyGvH-j0k0u4DweGjk24ImLXzOmjQNilylzJlTEoEM0J1v9BsvaKpbTA~zbOeY-loI5qiUzqo9z3FWEq1m5K~HIurrAPZiXgNXzou0U-vyhWc0aVFOqX4e9tEz4~DTu2SafptEzRziQfi7RBwgyfXOBiJl9vW4z7ktIuNHYe1jTHjVDf3LLrr89Ya-1QJt8PpQZa3IPMu~oZM9Fd5eP~ChRWAKtEJziFe0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Committee on Judiciary members on the record discussed House Bill 2,461, a measure that would replace a fixed 30‑day advance‑notice requirement for requests to testify remotely in civil cases with a case‑by‑case “sufficiently in advance” standard and add specificity to the prejudice factor about whether reliable facilities or technology are readily available to the court, counsel, parties and witnesses.

Supporters told the committee the change would preserve parties’ opportunity to challenge a remote‑testimony request while reducing a burdensome statutory deadline. \"The rule was 30 days advance notice. In some of our summary cases, you don't have 30 days. And in, all cases, 30 days is unnecessarily long and burdensome,\" said Mark Peterson, executive director of the Council on Court Procedures. Kimberly McCullough, senior counsel for government relations at the Oregon Judicial Department, said the bill will increase access and reduce costs associated with travel and time off work.

The bill would let courts evaluate remote‑testimony requests on a flexible timetable that accounts for local resources and evolving technology. Peterson told the committee that the Council on Court Procedures amended Rule 39 and Rule 57 to allow more remote processes after lessons learned during the COVID‑19 pandemic, but those rules remain constrained by the statutory 30‑day notice requirement. \"We simply say you make the motion, and give the other side an adequate time, which will be on a case by case basis, to look at the criteria that supports the motion for remote testimony and those criteria that may prejudice one side or the other,\" Peterson said.

Oregon Judicial Department testimony emphasized access and safety benefits: \"Remote testimony in civil cases has several advantages. Parties and witnesses save costs associated with travel, time off from work, childcare, and attorney's fees,\" McCullough said, adding that remote testimony can improve access for people with disabilities and increase safety for victims.

Members asked how the proposed standard would work in practice. Vice Chair Wallen confirmed that the statutory criteria already allow a party to contest remote testimony on credibility grounds; McCullough said the statute permits the opposing side to challenge requests and that some hearings (for example, Family Abuse Prevention Act matters) include additional criteria reflecting safety concerns.

Several lawmakers expressed support while urging attention to predictability. \"I appreciate the flexibility, but I'm also interested in predictability,\" said Chair Cropp, noting that differences among counties' courthouse size and technology could yield uneven access unless courts adopt consistent practices.

No formal action or vote occurred during the public hearing. Testimony came from court representatives and the Oregon Judicial Department; the Oregon State Bar was represented on the bill as part of its law improvement package, according to witnesses. The committee closed the public hearing and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Proponents and committee members flagged related materials and rule language for continued review, including two court rules amended by the Council on Court Procedures, related statutory references to the Family Abuse Prevention Act, and a chief justice administrative order noted in testimony.","A House Judiciary public hearing on House Bill 2,461 considered removing a fixed 30‑day notice for requests to allow remote testimony in civil cases and adding a specific prejudice factor about whether reliable technology or facilities are available for all participants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears arguments to extend public‑body attorney‑client privilege from 25 to 50 years

Panel hears bill to clarify what counts toward $750 small‑claims threshold

Committee reviews bill to shorten notice and clarify tech access for remote testimony in civil cases