Arnold Law Office, LLC - Oregon Civil Practice and Litigation

Maybe their motto was meant "tongue in cheek"?

From the NYT article at least, I would have to disagree with you that FL went way out of line.

"A minority of the panel would have allowed Facebook friendship, which it characterized as more like “a contact or acquaintance” without conveying the notion of “feelings of affection or personal regard.”

The issue is that Facebook has the ability to convey that two people who are 'friends' on Facebook are acquaintances. I.e. you're not going to have your worst enemy as one of your friends on Facebook. You have people who you hold in good regard on your Facebook account. ... See More

One of the FL arguments that the NYT points out is that if judges were allowed to use Facebook that a party could simply seek to remove a judge. That is not always as easy as it sounds especially if there IS a friendship or familiar connection. At least in the county I'm in that would be very difficult to use as a reason to remove a judge from a case. And a party should not have to even go there. I think FL is taking a preemptive stance/opinion on the issue, and trying to prevent issues/impropriety.

It is also just an opinion, so if there are individual judges who really want to have lawyers on their personal facebook account (you can create a business page) and are willing to deal with a potential for a considerable number of motions to remove them from cases, then they are still free to do so.

No

I'm curious because I grew up in Seaside (Clatsop County) and Josh Marquis has been the DA for close to 20 years.

Although I don't think that my views necessarily align with those of the majority in Clatsop county.

Yes.

That's going to be a tough decision and race for the seat.

Barbara, I actually wrote my comment before I saw yours. In response to your question, I have no idea. Electing judges, in my opinion, is an awful way to run a judiciary. My home state of Missouri does it best: a commission forwards three names to the governor who then appoints one. After one year, the judge stands for a retention election ... See Morewhere you can have the judge removed and a new judge appointed through the same process. Every few years you can vote “no” on a judge. Most Oregon judges are actually appointed by virtue of judges retiring mid-term. Virtually all sitting judges run unopposed in elections. In practice, we do a poor variation of the Missouri Plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Plan

Mike, I have lived in Oregon almost my entire adult life, however, I have been fortunate to have traveled pretty extensively. Additionally, I am a political junkie since high school. With that, I have to say that besides the judiciary on the ballot, I am also not a fan of ballot initiatives. IF people looked at their citizenship as a privilege that... See More has associated responsibilities, rather than an entitlement, those that we elect to represent us, might actually be the most qualified to do just that - represent their constituents by producing legislation to meet our needs; therefore when extrapolated would apply to judges being appointed. Just sayin~

BTW, thanks for taking the time to respond and the link to Wiki...

Jayhawks are to Mizzou as Beavers are to Ducks.

p.s. We went to law school at Oregon. We got are BA's at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri, where our fight chants are not random words that rhyme with Jayhawk.

if only i lived in Oregon. sigh

:-(

That would be an amazing job. :D