holding statute which allowed public inspection of bar association records of complaints about attorney conduct did not substantially impair the inherent power of the judicial branch to regulate the bar
How later courts described this case
- holding statute which allowed public inspection of bar association records of complaints about attorney conduct did not substantially impair the inherent power of the judicial branch to regulate the bar
- involving the “information submitted to a public agency in confidence” exemption from disclosure now in ORS 192.502(3)
- communications to Oregon State Bar were not exempt from disclosure, despite potential harm to the public interest, where there was no evidence that any individuals who submitted complaints about an attorney did so on the condition, or with the understanding, that the complaints would be kept confidential
- involving the “information submitted to a public agency in confidence” exemption from disclosure now in ORS *439 192.502(3)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State Ex Rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 307 Or. 304 (1989)
The narrow issue presented here is whether Sadler is distinguishable because the case at bar involves a disclosure request by an accused attorney in a pending disciplinary proceeding.
The opinion
HOWELL, J.,
specially concurring.
I cannot disagree with the reasoning expressed in the majority opinion. However, now that we hold that complaints made against a member of the bar, no matter how false or frivolous, are subject to disclosure, it may be that this court should reconsider the policy reasons which granted absolute immunity to a complainant in Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or 383 , 347 P2d 594 , 77 ALR2d 481 (1959).