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

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.