FLEC LIASION MEETING MINUTES

FEBRUARY 14, 2012

1.

Roll Call and Attendance.

FLEC
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Judith Winn, Chair

Russell Carlson, Vice-Chair
Elaine Van Beveren, Treasurer
Fredrick S. (Rick) Cohen, Secretary
Michael Jonsson, Immediate Past Chair

Judicial Officers
a.
Hon. Matthew Gary
b.
Hon. James Mize
c.
Hon. Sharon Lueras
d.
Commr. Scott Harman
e.
Commr. Danny Haukedalen
Administration
a.
Julie Setzer
b.
Lollie Roberts

2.

Minors Counsel Compensation by the Court.

The funds to pay minors counsel on court pay cases are dwindling rapidly, but
are not yet at zero dollars.
The pace and method by which minors counsel cases are being converted to pro
bono or withdrawal of counsel is being handled on an individual department basis. In
general, cases that are dormant (no motions and little to no billings) are receiving notices
that minors counsel will be relieved unless minors counsel requests to stay on the case.
Although there are questions about the survival of various panel lists, the list that
is most likely to survive will be the Minors Counsel Panel.

3.

Pro Bono Mediation Panel.

The court remains concerned about how to ensure that the pro bono mediators are
legally qualified to provide this service, as both recommending and non-recommending
mediators must meet the statutory and Rule of Court requirements.
There was discussion about using the umbrella of pro tem judges or working
through the Family Law Facilitators office. But, these options have logistical and legal
problems as well.
The court will continue to look at this issue, but the sense is that it is unlikely that
the pro bono mediation panel will be able to be resurrected in light of the legal
qualifications.
4.

Settlement Department Issues.

The court is concerned that settlement rates are continuing to decline.

The court may look at ways to bring back some of the experienced pro tem judges
who were known for fostering successful settlements but resisted taking the time and
effort to qualify as pro tem judges under the current rules. The court may consider
finding ways to have these people serve unofficially where they are not judge pro tems
(may not take the bench or sign stipulations).
The court will look at training for the existing pro tem judges in order to help
develop their skills and increase their settlement rates. This includes better clarifying
how assertive the court wants the settlement judges to be when assisting with settlement
conferences (coercive as compared to simply being available to make it legal).
If there are problems with attorneys refusing to stay beyond a certain time (prior
to 4:00 p.m.), then the settlement judges should direct the attorneys to the supervising
family law judge for a resolution of the issue.
One concern discussed was that attorneys refuse to stay beyond a certain time
(prior to 4:00 p.m.) due to conflicts, such as hearings in other courts. The court agreed
that pro tems should not release attorneys until their case is either settled or confirmed for
trial. As always, the Supervising Judge may offer assistance to pro tems as needed.
With respect to counsel who are double set with a law & motion matter in one
case and a settlement conference in another case, that should not be happening. But, if it
does, counsel should notify the law & motion department in order to either be heard early
or to be notified when their case is ready to be called in order to avoid disrupting the
settlement department process.
2

5.

Case Management Conference.

We discussed ways that pro tem judges could help with this function. The
problem is that there is significant work to support such a function and there are a lack of
resources available in Department 128.
6.

Hearing Continuances.

The potential for attorneys to continue a court hearing on an earlier date when that
attorney happens to be in court anyway on another matter will be a department by
department decision. Most likely, at a minimum, the continuance request would need to
be close in time to the hearing in order to ensure that the file is already up in the
department.
7.

Private Judges.
The court is looking at this issue.

Historically, the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court (going
all the way back to the late Judge James Ford) has strongly resisted private judge
stipulations. The concern is the potential for a two-tier justice system for those who have
resources and those who do not.
At this point, counsel should expect that private judge stipulations will rarely, if
ever, be approved.
The court does support and approve referrals to binding arbitration pursuant to the
California Arbitration Act, JAMS, and other organizations. The key distinction is the
loss of appellate review and the fact that the case is permanently out of the judicial
system, rather than out of the system for trial, but back in the system for appellate review.
8.

Custody Sub-Committee

At the present time, no new applications are being accepted for admission to any of the
courts panels (minors counsel, special master, private mediator, and custody evaluator).
Thus, the court is not reviewing drafts of new applications or procedural guidelines. Julie
will, however, review and follow-up on the procedural guidelines for private mediators
and custody evaluators because of the upcoming training program.
The Mediator and Evaluator Training Program will be on October 19, 2012 at the
Natoma Inn in Folsom.

MINUTES
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
OREGON STATE BAR FAMILY LAW SECTION
February 16, 2012
Present:

Laura Rufolo
Anthony Wilson
Marcia Buckley
Lauren Saucy

Chair
Past Chair
Treasurer
Secretary

Members at large: Sean Armstrong, Jacy Arnold, Debra Dority, Andrew Ivers, Scott
Leibenguth, Christopher Eggert, , Laura Graser, Theresa Kohohoff,
Also participating:

Ryan Carty
Susan Grabe

Legislative Subcommittee Co-Chair

Bar Liaison

*****
The meeting took place by teleconference.
Call to Order. The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. A quorum was present.
Business: The following items of business came before the committee:
1.

Approval of Minutes. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, it
was:
RESOLVED: The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting held
January 19, 2012, are approved as written.

2.

Treasurers Report. No report.

3.

Salishan Conference 2012, Committee Report. Planning for the conference is moving
forward. Discussions have begun with Salishan for contracting the 2014 and 2015
conferences. For the 2012 conference, some speakers have been acquired, including a
second out of state speaker. The committees main work at present is focused on pursuing
additional topics and presenters. Suggestions from FLEC are welcome.

5.

Legislation, Committee Report. No legislation that is currently outstanding should impact

the Family Law Section for the 2012 session. The committee is meeting February 22 to
discuss proposals for the 2013 legislative session. The committees recommendations will
be presented to the FLEC before the March 15 meeting so that a vote on proposals may be
held. The 2013 deadline to have legislative proposals to the Oregon State Bar for approval

is April 2, 2012.
6.

Child Support Calculator, Committee Report. The state workgroup is making progress.
The work groups recommendations will soon be finalized and presented to the Department
of Child Support to determine which recommendations should be put into effect in the new
guidelines and how various issues should be incorporated into the formula. Ultimately the
DCS has control over which recommendations are incorporated, however, it seems likely that
the majority of issues will be addressed by DCS. The new guidelines should be implemented
near the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013.

7.

Family Law Section Web Page, Committee Report. The web page is not yet up and
running. Contact has been made with the programmer to try to determine what other steps
need to be taken to get the web page going and that connection should be made soon. The
committee solicited additional members from the family law list-serve to join the committee
and no response was received.

8.

Professionalism Award, Committee Report. The committee has created a brief outline
of how to solicit nominations (list serve and perhaps bar journal) and a process for voting on
future awards. More work will focus on creating guidelines for the award. The committee
intends to have a working model in place by June 2012.

9.

Donation Request. Follow up discussion was held on the request that the section contribute
to the Campaign for Equal Justice.
Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, it was:
RESOLVED: The FLEC will periodically review and consider
donations to charitable organizations within the framework allowed
by the Oregon State Bar. This includes, but is not limited to, the
Campaign for Equal Justice. Donations will be made in an amount set
by the FLEC. The source of donated funds will be conference
revenue rather than member dues.

10

Section Newsletter, Editors Report. The Editor submitted a written report as follows:
Article submissions and requests are in line with previous years. A few particular out of state
attorneys have volunteered to write articles relating to military pensions. They do research
Oregon law to include in their materials and it was recommended that the articles continue
to be included on the FLS newsletter so long as the quality level continues. Article
submissions by section membership are always welcome.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:32
p.m.

These minutes were prepared by Lauren Saucy, 2012 Secretary to the Oregon State Bar Family Law
Section Executive Committee.

LaurenSaucy
*

The schedule of future meetings is:

Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Saturday

March 15, 2012

April 19 , 2012
May 17, 2012
June 21, 2012
October 20, 2012

3:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. in Salem
7:00 a.m. in Salishan