Other

Oregon DOJ Warns of Fake Attorney Scam

by
Seal of the State of Oregon Department of Justice

Oregon’s Department of Justice Financial Fraud/Consumer Protection Section has a new scam alert warning of bad actors impersonating lawyers to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Here’s a link to the full text of the “New scam alert”.

In one recent case a fraudulent website impersonated an Oregon attorney and scammed victims out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while in another case the victim lost over $700,000 when scammers gained unauthorized access to both the attorney’s and the client’s email accounts, during the negotiations of a substantial settlement with false wiring instructions.

Be diligent.  Pick up the phone and talk to trusted contacts.  Meet face-to-face.   

Oregon’s DOJ advises: “If you have been impacted by this scam:

  1. File a report with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center » as quickly as possible
  2. File a police report with your local police department
  3. If money was delivered via wire, contact your bank and file a “Suspicious Activity Report”
  4. File a report with the FDIC » regarding wire fraud
  5. File a report with the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency » (OCC) as they investigate banks for unsafe or unsound practices, compliance violations, or breaches of fiduciary duty
  6. File a report with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau » (CFPB)

If you are an attorney who has been impersonated:

  1. Report the incident to the Oregon State Bar
  2. File a police report with your local police office and provide the imposter website
  3. File a report with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center » and provide the imposter website

Additional precautions for attorneys:

  1. In transactions involving wiring funds, obtain and confirm wiring instructions in-person, whenever possible.
  2. If wiring instructions are received via email or another indirect method, verify them using a known and trusted phone number before initiating any transfers.”

-Victoria Blachly

The Rule Of Law Matters: Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP supports the American Bar Association’s statement

by
Blind Justice with scales and sword

The Rule Of Law Matters –

Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP supports the American Bar Association’s statement

“We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, ‘[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.’

We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner.

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.”

Link to the full text of the ABA statement here. 

New Oregon Center for Behavioral Health and Aging Announced

by
Fall Wild Flowers

Portland State University, together with Oregon Health & Science University, just launched OCEBHA:  Oregon’s Center of Excellence in Behavior Health & Aging (oregonbhi.org/center-for-excellence).  The focus of the center is “to address the behavioral health needs of Oregon’s aging population by improving access to services and supports.”

With involvement from the PSU Institute on Aging, PSU School of Social Work, OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, OHSU School of Medicine, and OHSU School of Nursing, let’s hope for greater education, awareness, and a pipeline of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of our aging Oregonians.

Details are few, but you can sign up for their newsletter to stay informed.

OCEBH Logo

Clause for Concern: How Consumers May Unknowingly Click Away Their Right to Sue

by
I agree to the Accept

In today’s digital age, many of us have signed up for various online services without giving much thought to the fine print of the Terms and Conditions. If you have signed up for Uber Eats or Disney+, chances are you scrolled right past the binding arbitration provision which can limit your ability to sue Uber Technologies, Inc., or The Disney Company in Court. While many individuals struggle to envision a scenario where they would want to engage either of these corporate entities in litigation, some users of these apps have discovered that they unknowingly waived their right to a trial when they accepted the terms of service.

A recent case involving a married couple from New Jersey has once again brought attention to the powerful impact of arbitration clauses in “terms of service” agreements. A Husband and Wife were involved in a devastating car accident during an Uber ride in March 2022, which left them with significant physical and psychological injuries. Despite their efforts to sue Uber, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that they were bound by an arbitration agreement they had previously accepted when ordering food on Uber Eats, effectively blocking them from pursuing a trial, even though the meal delivery app is a service separate from the ride-sharing platform. This decision overturned a prior lower court ruling, which had argued that Uber’s pop-up notification did not adequately inform users about the arbitration clause. The appellate court, however, sided with Uber, and found that the terms were valid and enforceable.

A similar matter involving Disney made headlines this summer. In 2023, a Disney Parks guest died after suffering an allergic reaction from food served on the premises, and her widower later filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the corporation. Lawyers for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts tried to get the case thrown out of court and sent to arbitration, pointing to the binding arbitration clause embedded in the Terms and Conditions for Disney+, for which the widower had received a free trial years earlier. In August 2024, Disney reversed course and waived their right to arbitration, with their lawyers citing a desire to “put humanity above all other considerations.” The court ultimately did not make any determinations on the merits of Disney’s arguments.

Both cases underscore the growing trend of companies using arbitration clauses to shield themselves from public lawsuits. As arbitration clauses become more common, and more legal precedent supports their enforcement, individuals may find it increasingly difficult to take companies to court, even in severe cases involving personal injury or death. Consumers should be proactive and get informed before accepting the terms of service without first reading the fine print. If you have questions about the Terms and Conditions of a service you are contemplating signing up for, consider contacting an attorney before clicking “accept.”

–  Adriana G. Cunha, Associate

Police Training Needed to Raise Dementia Awareness

by

Police actions and training have been the focus for some time now, but our elders need to be included when there are conversations about reform.  Specifically, better training when it comes to identifying dementia and working with those that struggle with the insidious disease would necessarily lead to less frightful and concerning interactions.

In Colorado, a slight 73-year-old woman of 80 pounds was recently wrestled to the ground after leaving Walmart without paying for $13.88 in merchandise.  The police video footage shows that there were no efforts to talk with the demented woman to assess her awareness or understanding of the situation, before her arms were wrenched behind her and she had a male police officer on top of her, all while she was crying, “I’m trying to go home.”  Civil claims and criminal investigations are on-going.

It is heart-breaking, and a reminder to us all to slow down, and use patience and calmness when interacting with people with dementia.  In fact, let’s just try use that standard in ALL of our interactions with ALL of our fellow humans.

Oregon Supreme Court: Churches’ Challenge Struck Down

by
New Multnomah County Courthouse

A group of churches and public officials in Baker County challenged Governor Brown’s executive orders aimed at slowing down COVID-19. On Friday, June 12, 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down the churches’ challenge.

Previously, Judge Matthew Shirtcliff of the Baker County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction, which rejected a number of Governor Brown’s “Stay Home Save Lives” restrictions related to public gatherings and business operations. Judge Shirtcliff ruled that Governor Brown’s restrictions were unconstitutional.

Judge Shirtcliff’s decision was then heard by the Oregon Supreme Court. Governor Brown’s challengers conceded that the governor had the power to limit public gatherings and business operations during a pandemic. However, they argued that she could only do so for a period of 28 days. Attorneys for Governor Brown argued that the police powers granted to the governor in ORS chapter 401 authorize certain emergency powers.

While the plaintiffs in the Baker County case argued for a 28-day limit, other groups in locales across the country are rooting their arguments elsewhere. Such is the case where churches allege that stay home orders infringe on religious freedom, granted by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Governor Brown’s challengers raised this argument, but the Oregon Supreme Court chose not to address those allegations.

The Oregon Supreme Court considered other jurisdictional decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as a lawsuit brought against the California Governor Gavin Newsom. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided over one-hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court supported elected officials’ broad power to respond to public health emergencies. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to suspend the California governor’s executive order placing limits on public gatherings in order to slow the spread of COVID-19.

As the global pandemic continues to affect communities across the nation, lawmakers and government officials face the continuing debate on whether restricting public gatherings and business operations violates the constitutional rights of Americans – both in their state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution. Only time will tell how other state courts – and federal courts – address challenges to these restrictions.

Denise Gorrell draws upon her extensive knowledge of restaurants and the wine industry to inform her real property and commercial law practice. She helps hospitality industry clients navigate complex, important issues such as business formation, real estate agreements, trademarks, OLCC rules and other governmental regulations.

Colleen Muñoz is a litigator at SYK. Her practice is centered around commercial and fiduciary litigation focusing on real property, employment, and construction law.

Accessibility