Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Bar seeks statutory wording changes: ‘member’ to ‘licensee’ and quorum adjustment debated
Summary
At a public hearing on Senate Bill 166, the Oregon State Bar’s general counsel said the bill would replace the term “member” with “licensee” in the State Bar Act and permit the Board of Governors to set a quorum threshold; the bar signaled openness to amending a proposed reduction from two‑thirds to majority quorum.
The Oregon State Bar asked the Senate Committee on Judiciary to approve statutory updates that would consistently refer to regulated lawyers as "licensees" rather than "members" and would allow the Board of Governors to set its own quorum requirement, during a public hearing on Senate Bill 166.
"The term licensee is more accurate and better communicates to the public the bar's primary role as a regulator of the legal profession," Ankur Doshi, general counsel for the Oregon State Bar, told the committee.
Doshi told the committee SB 166 updates references in ORS chapter 9 (the Oregon State Bar Act) to cite both the bar’s rules of procedure and the Oregon Supreme Court’s rules where appropriate. He also described a proposed change to the statute’s quorum provision (ORS 9.080). The current statute sets a two‑thirds quorum for the 19‑member volunteer Board of Governors. The posted draft would let the board set a lower quorum—initially to a majority of members—but Doshi said the bar is discussing retaining the two‑thirds requirement after concerns were raised about geographic representation between eastern and western Oregon.
Committee members suggested a possible compromise quorum such as three‑fifths; Doshi said the bar is open to discussion and that the initial higher threshold had been intended as a convenience standard for volunteer members.
Doshi also explained that the unified (mandatory) bar structure means the organization both regulates and provides member services; he said "licensee" better reflects the regulatory role and may reduce confusion, citing a Ninth Circuit opinion (Crow v. Oregon State Bar) that raised similar concerns about public understanding.
The hearing was public testimony only; committee members asked technical follow‑up questions and requested any prospective amendments be shared with staff. No committee vote occurred at the hearing.
