2017 ORS 9.695¹
Status of files or work premises of lawyer
  • inadmissibility of evidence subject to search or seizure

(1) Notwithstanding ORS 133.535 (Permissible objects of search and seizure), the files, papers, effects or work premises of a lawyer relating to the provision of legal service by the lawyer shall not be subject to search or seizure by any law enforcement officer, either by search warrant or otherwise.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not apply where there is probable cause to believe that the lawyer has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

(3) As used in this section, “lawyer” means a member of the Oregon State Bar or a person licensed to practice law in any court of this state or any court of record of the United States or of any state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States.

(4) Evidence or the fruits thereof obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding, except for an action or suit brought for violation of this section or the rights protected thereby. [1981 c.908 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Although this sec­tion prohibits search and seizure of files or work premises of lawyer, it does not proscribe routine fire safety inspec­tions con­ducted pursuant to narrowly drawn search warrant that provides reasonable notice to lawyers whose offices will be inspected. Parks v. City of Klamath Falls, 82 Or App 576, 728 P2d 934 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where there is probable cause to believe lawyer has committed crime, lawyer’s papers and effects lose confidentiality protec­tion even if no probable cause exists to believe papers or effects will yield evidence of crime. State v. Makuch/Riesterer, 185 Or App 298, 59 P3d 536 (2002), aff’d 340 Or 658, 136 P3d 35 (2006)

Evidence obtained in viola­tion of laws of an­oth­er state may provide probable cause to believe lawyer has committed, is com­mit­ting or is about to commit crime. State v. Makuch/Riesterer, 185 Or App 298, 59 P3d 536 (2002), aff’d 340 Or 658, 136 P3d 35 (2006)

Client has no constitu­tionally protected privacy interest in listing of client’s name or home or business address in papers or effects of lawyer. State v. Makuch/Riesterer, 185 Or App 298, 59 P3d 536 (2002), aff’d 340 Or 658, 136 P3d 35 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 9—Attorneys; Law Libraries, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors009.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 9, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano009.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.