Oregon

formal

OSB Formal Opinion No. 2025-205 (Feb. 2025)

Summary

OSB Formal Opinion 2025-205 establishes a comprehensive framework covering competence, confidentiality, billing, supervision, and candor. Oregon has produced four published sanctions cases in 2025-2026, including the Couvrette v. Wisnovsky federal sanctions (~$110,000 total, April 2026, the largest in Oregon federal court history) and the Doiban v. OLCC $10,000 record sanction (March 2026, Oregon Court of Appeals). Proposed amendments to ORAP 1.40 and 13.25 would codify sanctions for fabricated law and facts.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 4.1
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

Oregon is unusual nationally in that malpractice coverage is mandatory for all private-practice attorneys with their principal office in Oregon, provided through the OSB Professional Liability Fund (PLF). 2026 primary coverage is $300,000 per claim/aggregate plus $75,000 claims expense; annual assessment is $3,500 per licensee. PLF advises using only closed-system AI tools. The Couvrette bar referral signals dual exposure (sanctions plus discipline that could affect coverage eligibility).

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Oregon is one of the most active jurisdictions for AI enforcement. OSB Formal Opinion 2025-205 (February 2025) requires lawyers to understand AI tool capabilities and limitations (RPC 1.1), determine client consent (presumptively yes for open/consumer models) and review vendor contracts before inputting client information (RPC 1.6), verify every citation, quotation, and factual assertion before filing (RPC 3.3), inform clients in writing before charging for AI tool costs and not inflate hours (RPC 1.5), and supervise subordinates and staff (RPCs 5.1, 5.3).

Four sanctions cases shape the enforcement landscape: Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio (Or Ct App, Dec. 2025) imposed $2,000 with a tariff of $500 per fabricated citation and $1,000 per fabricated quotation; Green Building Initiative v. Green Globe (D. Or. 2025) avoided sanctions after prompt voluntary disclosure; Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or. final order April 4, 2026) imposed approximately $110,000 total ($95,500 against lead counsel, $14,205.66 against Portland local counsel for failure to supervise); and Doiban v. OLCC (Or Ct App, March 18, 2026) imposed a record $10,000 against an attorney whose paralegal relied on Google search AI overviews to “verify” fabricated cases. Doiban holds that Google search is not adequate verification and that having an anti-AI policy is not a defense if verification was not actually performed.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Oregon firm: Formal Opinion 2025-205 is official advisory guidance with directly actionable requirements. The pattern of enforcement, including a $110,000 federal penalty and a record $10,000 state appellate sanction, makes Oregon one of the highest-risk states for AI-related sanctions. Verification of every citation before filing is not optional. Local counsel who sign AI-assisted filings share independent liability for verification failures.

Last verified: April 23, 2026