Skip to main content

Oregon — Court Rules & Rules of Practice Guide

Last verified · Published by Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd. · Browse the Oregon rules

1. Court System Overview

Oregon courts: circuit courts (unified, state-funded trial courts of general jurisdiction in 27 judicial districts covering 36 counties (verified — ORS 3.012) — all civil, criminal, family, probate, juvenile, small claims departments), the Oregon Tax Court (own rules; magistrate + regular divisions — verified), the Oregon Court of Appeals (13 judges since 2012, verified — OJD calls it one of the busiest appellate courts in the nation), and the Oregon Supreme Court. Justice courts and municipal courts survive in some counties/cities — OJD confirms they are “not part of the state-funded Oregon court system” (non-unified remnants, verified). Oregon’s rulemaking is fragmented by design — see the map.

2. The Ruleset Map

Oregon’s civil rules come from a body no other state has: the Council on Court Procedures (verified — counciloncourtprocedures.org), a statutory lawyer/judge council that promulgates the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP), which take effect unless the legislature amends them; the ORCP are published with the statutes (oregonlegislature.gov, verified):

Ruleset Source Scope
ORCP (Rules 1–85, lettered sections: “ORCP 21 A(1)(h)” — renumbered by the 2020 promulgation, eff. 2022; older cases say “21 A(8)”) Council on Court Procedures → legislature Civil trial procedure (all circuit courts except small claims department)
UTCR — Uniform Trial Court Rules (2026 ed.) Chief Justice (UTCR Committee) Statewide practice overlay (chapter titles verified: ch. 5 civil proceedings/motions, ch. 8 domestic relations, ch. 9 probate/adoption, ch. 13 arbitration, ch. 21 e-filing) + Supplementary Local Rules (SLR) per district
ORAP — Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure Appellate courts Court of Appeals + Supreme Court
Criminal procedure Statutory — ORS chs. 131–169 No criminal rules volume (arraignment, discovery ORS 135.805+, speedy trial ORS 135.746+)
Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) Statute — ORS ch. 40 FRE-modeled but cited as OEC rules (“OEC 403 / ORS 40.160”)
Juvenile: ORS chs. 419A–C Statutory Juvenile dependency/delinquency
Probate: ORS chs. 111–118 + UTCR ch. 9 Statutory + UTCR Circuit court probate departments
Small claims: ORS ch. 46 (≤$10,000 may be filed there; ≤$750 must be — verified, ORS 46.405(2)–(3)) Statutory Circuit court small claims departments; no attorney may appear without the consent of the judge (verified — ORS 46.415)
Tax Court rules (TCR regular division / TCR-MD magistrate division — verified) Tax Court (own rulemaking authority, ORS 305.425(3) — verified) Own civil-rules analogue (many TCR mirror ORCP; ORCP/UTCR do not directly apply)
Oregon RPC; Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) Supreme Court/OSB Ethics/discipline
  • No business court: no business or commercial court appears in OJD’s court directory, its Rules Center index, or the Multnomah County SLR; Multnomah County’s SLR do run a complex-case track — cases “designated ‘complex’” are specially assigned by the Presiding Judge to one judge, who then hears that case’s motions, ex parte matters, summary-judgment motions, and postponement requests (verified — Multnomah SLR 5.014(3), 5.016(2), 5.025(1), 7.021(2), eff. Feb. 1, 2026).

3. Civil Litigation Mechanics

  • ORCP numbering is its own language: Rule 21 (not 12) for defenses/dismissal; Rule 47 summary judgment (verified); lettered subdivisions — “ORCP 21 A(1)(h)” = failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim (verified — the 2020 Council promulgation restructured the old “ORCP 21 A(8)” list into A(1)(a)–(i)). Oregon kept fact pleading — “a plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim” (verified — ORCP 18 A) — so a complaint that pleads conclusions rather than ultimate facts is exposed to an ORCP 21 A(1)(h) motion.
  • Commencement: complaint + summons; appearance/answer 30 days from the date of service (verified — ORCP 7 C(2) summons requirement).
  • No expert discovery: Oregon famously prohibits pretrial discovery of expert witnesses in civil cases — no expert depositions or reports; experts are revealed at trial. ORCP 36 (verified) contains no FRCP 26(b)(4)-style expert provision at all; the affirmative case-law prohibition is Stevens v. Czerniak, 336 Or 392 (2004) (verified — the Oregon Supreme Court held the trial court “lacked authority to order pretrial disclosure of petitioner’s expert witnesses’ names and testimony,” reasoning that the 1979 Legislature deleted proposed ORCP 36 B(4), which would have authorized expert discovery, and that ORCP 36 “omits the specific authorization for expert discovery that FRCP 26(b) includes,” consistent with “Oregon’s longstanding practice of not allowing expert discovery”). This single fact reorganizes Oregon litigation strategy.
  • Discovery: ORCP 36–46 — no federal-style initial disclosures: current ORCP 36 (verified) is request-driven, with only narrow automatic-disclosure duties (insurance agreements on request; a party’s own prior statements); requests for admission ORCP 45 (verified).
  • Mandatory court-annexed arbitration for money-damages cases ≤$50,000 (verified — ORS 36.400, 36.405(1)(a); UTCR ch. 13) with appeal by trial de novo (notice within 20 days) and fee/cost exposure for an appellant who fails to improve their position (verified — ORS 36.425).
  • UTCR + SLR: always read the district’s Supplementary Local Rules — motion practice and ex parte customs are local.

4. Criminal Practice Mechanics

  • Path: felonies by grand jury indictment (constitutional — Or. Const. Art. VII (Amended) § 5(3): a person “shall be charged in a circuit court with the commission of any crime punishable as a felony only on indictment by a grand jury,” except by district attorney’s information after a knowing waiver of indictment (§ 5(4)) or after a preliminary hearing finding probable cause, or waiver of that hearing (§ 5(5)); a grand jury is seven jurors, five of whom must concur to indict (§ 5(2)) — verified, oregonlegislature.gov constitution text) in circuit court; misdemeanors same court; justice/municipal courts for violations in some counties.
  • Speedy trial: statutory framework rebuilt in 2013–14 — ORS 135.746 (verified): trial must commence within two years (misdemeanors) / three years (felonies) from the filing of the charging instrument, with statutory exclusions; remedy is dismissal, generally without prejudice, unless the court finds substantial and compelling reasons to continue (verified — ORS 135.752); constitutional analysis rides alongside.
  • Discovery: reciprocal statutory discovery, ORS 135.805–135.873 (verified — the scheme pairs disclosure to the defendant, ORS 135.815, with disclosure to the state, ORS 135.835).
  • Jury quirk: Oregon was one of only two states (with Louisiana) allowing non-unanimous (10–2) felony verdicts until Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) (verified) — post-Ramos, the Oregon Supreme Court held in Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022) (verified — OJD official opinion) that a conviction by a nonunanimous 12-person jury “render[s] the conviction void” under ORS 138.530(1)(a), so post-conviction relief is available even where the conviction became final before Ramos, subject to the PCHA’s procedural defenses.
  • Post-conviction: the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (ORS 138.510–.680) — two-year limitations (verified — ORS 138.510(3): from entry of judgment, or finality of the appeal, with an escape valve for grounds that could not reasonably have been raised); separate civil action in circuit court.
  • Criminal appeals: ORS ch. 138 + ORAP — notice of appeal served and filed within 30 days of entry (verified — ORS 138.071).

5. Evidence

  • Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) — enacted 1981 as ORS ch. 40 but universally cited by OEC rule number (OEC 401/403/702); the statutes themselves carry the rule designations (verified — ORS 40.160 is captioned “Rule 403”); FRE-modeled with Oregon commentary.
  • Experts: no Daubert as such — Oregon applies its own multi-factor scientific-validity analysis under State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 (1984), as extended by State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 (1995) (verified), which called Daubert “an appropriate further development” of Brown and told trial courts they “should … find Daubert instructive” — persuasive, not binding. And remember: no civil expert discovery.

6. Appellate Mechanics

  • Routing: circuit court → Court of Appeals (nearly everything; contested-case administrative review goes straight to the Court of Appeals — verified, ORS 183.482(1)) → Supreme Court by petition for review within 35 days of the decision (verified — ORS 2.520; ORAP 9.05); direct Supreme Court jurisdiction: death penalty (automatic and direct review — verified, ORS 138.052), Tax Court appeals (“sole and exclusive remedy” — verified, ORS 305.445), mandamus.
  • Initiating: notice of appeal served and filed within 30 days of entry in the register (verified — ORS 19.255) — timely service on all adverse parties is jurisdictional and “may not be waived or extended” (verified — ORS 19.270(2)); service defects kill appeals.
  • ORAP mechanics: the Court of Appeals disposes of cases by affirmance without opinion (AWOP) — ORAP 5.20(5) provides that cases affirmed without opinion “should not be cited as authority,” and ORAP 6.25(1) counts an AWOP as a “decision” open to a petition for reconsideration; motions practice is ORAP ch. 7 (“Motions,” ORAP 7.05–7.55 — written motions, mandatory good-faith conferral before filing (ORAP 7.05(1)(d)), extensions, tolling motions, emergency relief, and ORAP 7.50 summary affirmance in court-appointed-counsel cases); summary determination of appealability is ORAP 2.35 (under ORS 19.235(3), with a 14-day window for expedited Supreme Court review) (verified — ORAP 2026 ed., courts.oregon.gov). Nonprecedential memorandum opinions (ORAP 10.30(1)) are not precedent and may be cited only to show conflicting memorandum opinions or a recurring issue with no clear precedent, with an explanation of why and a “nonprecedential memorandum opinion” parenthetical (ORAP 10.30(1)(d)).
  • Interlocutory review is statutorily narrow: appeal lies from a limited, general, or supplemental judgment, or from an order that “affects a substantial right, and that effectively determines the action so as to prevent a judgment” (verified — ORS 19.205(1)–(2)); mandamus is the main safety valve (writ statutes verified — ORS 34.105–34.240, e.g., ORS 34.110).
  • Small-claims and arbitration tracks have their own limited review paths — arbitration’s is the ORS 36.425 trial de novo (verified); a small claims department judgment “is conclusive upon the parties and no appeal may be taken from the judgment” (verified — ORS 46.485(4)).

7. Rules of Professional Conduct

  • Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (Oregon RPC) — effective January 1, 2005, Model Rules-numbered (verified — OSB’s official RPC compilation, which replaced the old DR code), with Oregon variations (notably lateral-hire screening — Oregon RPC 1.10(c) lets a firm avoid imputation of a newly associated lawyer’s Rule 1.9 conflict if that lawyer is “promptly screened from any form of participation” and written notice of the screening procedures is promptly given to the affected former client; a 2014 amendment eliminated detailed screening requirements in favor of that notice — verified, OSB RPC compilation) and mandatory malpractice coverage via the bar-run Professional Liability Fund for active members in private practice with principal offices in Oregon (verified — ORS 9.080(2)); the PLF itself states that Oregon “is the only state that requires coverage for legal practitioners and provides that coverage through a mandatory bar-related program” (verified — osbplf.org; it notes Idaho requires coverage but via commercial carriers). The RPC also govern Licensed Paralegals (LPs) — individuals licensed by the Oregon State Bar to provide limited legal services (Oregon RPC 1.0(r)), with LP-specific counterparts to several rules. Cited “Oregon RPC 3.3.”

8. Attorney Discipline & Enforcement

  • Flow (Bar Rules of Procedure, “BR”): complaint → Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office (initial screening of all complaints — verified) → Disciplinary Counsel’s Office (investigation/prosecution — verified) → formal charges authorized by the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) (verified) → the Disciplinary Board (seven regional panels; trial panel = the Adjudicator (full-time presiding officer, who “shall serve as trial panel chairperson,” verified — BR 2.4(6)(b)) + one lawyer + one public member — verified) → review by the Oregon Supreme Court (verified — BR 10.1; the court “shall consider each matter de novo upon the record” — BR 10.6, verified). The Adjudicator position dates to the discipline-system reforms adopted by Supreme Court Order dated May 3, 2017, effective January 1, 2018 (verified — BR 1.1 and BR 2.4 amendment history notes adding the “Adjudicator” definition and Adjudicator-chaired trial panels).
  • Sanctions: admonition → reprimand → suspension (with probation options) → disbarment (Oregon disbarment is permanent for any proceeding commenced by formal complaint after December 31, 1995 — the disbarred licensee “shall never be eligible to apply and shall not be considered for admission under ORS 9.220 or reinstatement”; only pre-1996 disbarments carry a five-year reapplication wait — verified, BR 6.1(3); BR Title 8 reinstatement rules govern suspended, inactive, and resigned licensees); ABA Standards guide sanction analysis.
  • Discipline published in the Disciplinary Board Reporter; records via osbar.org.

9. Newcomer Orientation Notes

  • Recalibrate three instincts: fact pleading (not notice), no expert discovery, and ORCP numbering (21 ≠ 12; 47 ≠ 56).
  • Serve the notice of appeal on everyone, in time — Oregon’s jurisdictional service requirement is the state’s cruelest appellate trap.
  • Read UTCR ch. 5 + the district’s SLR before filing any motion; ex parte and conferral customs are local.
  • Mandatory arbitration ≤$50k reshapes small-case economics (de novo appeal with fee exposure — verified, ORS 36.425).
  • E-filing: statewide OJD eFile — Tyler Technologies File & Serve (Odyssey) — mandatory for active Oregon State Bar licensees absent an exception or waiver (verified — UTCR 21.140; UTCR ch. 21 governs e-filing/e-service).
  • Self-help: courts.oregon.gov forms center (family, small claims, FED (eviction)); OSB’s public legal info; law librarians statewide.
  • Out-of-state counsel: PHV under UTCR 3.170 “Association of Out-of-State Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)” (rule cite verified): the out-of-state attorney submits the required showings (good standing, disciplinary certification, PLF-equivalent malpractice coverage if in private practice) to the Oregon State Bar in the Bar’s form with a $750 nonrefundable fee per application, including each renewal at the end of a one-year grant (UTCR 3.170(6); waived for government-employed applicants representing their employer, 3.170(8); no fee for administrative-agency appearances); the associated Oregon local attorney then files a motion with the Bar’s acknowledgment; the grant covers one attorney in one case for one year, with separate applications for each attorney, case, or renewal (UTCR 3.170(1)–(2), (5)–(6), (8), 2026 ed.).

10. Sources & Verification

Sources (fetched 2026-08-27; re-verified 2026-08-28):

Official — Oregon Judicial Department / legislature / Council / OSB:

Labeled fallback (official-text mirrors) — oregon.public.law (Public.Law’s ORS/ORCP mirror) for: ORS 46.405, 46.415 (small claims); ORS 36.400, 36.405, 36.425 (arbitration); ORS 135.746, 135.752, 135.805 (speedy trial/discovery); ORS 138.510, 138.052, 138.071 (PCR/criminal appeals); ORS 19.255, 19.270 (civil appeals); ORS 2.520 (petition for review); ORS 3.012 (27 districts); ORS 9.080 (PLF); ORS 34.110 (mandamus); ORS 40.160 (OEC 403); ORCP 18/36/45/47 at https://oregon.public.law/rules-of-civil-procedure ; Justia for State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 (1995): https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1995/321-or-285.html and Ramos v. Louisiana: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/18-5924/

Sources fetched 2026-09-02 (flag-resolution pass 3):

Sources fetched 2026-09-24 (claim-by-claim audit):

  • Official rule text as published on courtrules.net (imported from courts.oregon.gov and oregonlegislature.gov 2026-08-28/31, osbar.org 2026-09-12): ORCP 7, 18, 21; UTCR 3.170, 21.140 (2026 ed.); ORAP 2.35, 5.20, 7.05, 9.05, 10.30; Oregon RPC 1.0, 1.10; BR 2.4, 6.1, 10.1, 10.6; ORS 135.746, 135.752, 138.052, 138.071, 138.510.
  • Official — ORS chapters 3, 9, 19, 36 and 46 on oregonlegislature.gov (2025 ed.): ORS 19.270(2), 36.405, 36.425, 46.405(2)–(3), 46.415(4), 46.485(4) — https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors046.html (same pattern for each chapter).
  • Corrected in this audit: the pro hac vice fee ($750 under UTCR 3.170(6), 2026 ed.; the guide had the 2025 edition’s $500).

Not verified (flagged): none.