Super Lawyers - Oregon 2012

litigation practice was so large that it was incompatible with the day-to-day needs of the domestic relations practice. I was having to travel to other states, fly to other locations to do investigations, to conduct depositions, perhaps being gone for the better part of a week, and that was not compatible with the needs of a domestic relations practice.

I also gave up that practice because, in
the fall of 1991, when the 1991 Civil Rights
Act was adopted, we had the Clarence
Thomas confirmation hearings, and of
course the whole nation was riveted to
Anita Hill’s testimony. I have a very vivid
memory of that weekend, after there’d
been several days of testimony about
Clarence Thomas’ appointment. I was at
a family get-together with people of all
different ages and generations from my
husband’s side of the family. And I heard
the women, [ranging from] young women
all the way up to the older women in the
family, talking about their own personal
experiences being sexually harassed in
their working lives. That was on a Sunday,
and I walked into the firm the next day
and I said, “I’m taking no more domestic
relations cases.” My partner said, “Why?” I
said, “Because we are about to do a lot of
sexual harassment litigation.”
That proved to be true. In the ’80s, I’d
had a lot of women come to me who had
had sexual harassment experiences in
the workplace, but the 1968 Civil Rights
Act had not provided effective remedies
because the conservative courts of that era,
particularly the conservative U.S. Supreme
Court, had basically eroded the remedies.
When the Civil Rights Act was amended in
1991 and remedies were finally built back
into the system, I just knew we would be
hearing from a lot of women who had sat
there through the Anita Hill testimony and
said, “She’s right; we should not put up with
this.” And that, in fact, is what happened.

Q: Were you also doing employment law at
that time?

A: I had been doing employment law,
[but] the remedies were not as effective,
so I had to be much more cautious about
what cases we accepted. [In 1991], the
doors opened to people being able to now
seek to resolve claims of discrimination in
a variety of different fields. Plus, keep in
mind the ADA had been adopted. Most—
not all, but most—of the federal statutes
were turning to the amendment of the
Civil Rights Act to address what would be
appropriate remedies. So it really was a
time in which there was an explosion of
litigation in that area. But I kept all the
other traditional aspects of my practice
going: wrongful death, professional
negligence, traditional PI work.

Q: Tell me more about the professional negligence work. A: I have really enjoyed, probably on a growing basis over the last 20 years, representing professionals before their state licensing boards. That would be doctors, dentists, psychologists, nurses—a lot of people in the medical community—in part because I’ve always enjoyed medicine. I think, if my family’s financial circumstances had been different, I would have gone on to get a medical degree or found a way to get a combined degree. I’ve served on some state boards and commissions where I’ve had a lot of exposure to medical and psychological issues.

Q: Is it unusual for an attorney to represent plaintiffs in most civil work, but also represent providers? A: I guess the unusual part is that the providers trust me to do it, considering that perhaps I am one of those trial attorneys, who they would be likely to denigrate if there was a general discussion about professional negligence cases. But the other part of it is, I have also—on occasion but not regularly— defended doctors even in civil cases where there have been claims of negligence or some issue that took place within their workplace. Clearly, I’m not the person the insurance companies would normally turn to, so there are occasions where the corporate attorney—the [medical] clinic’s attorney—has said we need to get someone on board to represent this doctor.

Q: Have you always lived in Portland? A: I’m originally from Pennsylvania. After law school, I moved out here for a federal clerkship and absolutely loved living in Oregon, and couldn’t imagine living anyplace else. I had a phenomenal experience clerking for Judge Skopil on the district court [in 1973-1974]. The other thing I liked, on a very personal level, was the size of the city, the amenities in terms of proximity to the mountains for skiing, to the high desert, to the ocean—just the diversity geographically.

Q: Were you specifically looking for an opening out West? A: In my second year of law school, I decided I wanted to move to the West Coast. I’m basically a small-town girl, and of course Seattle and San Francisco were very large cities, which I know in some respects offer many more opportunities, but I felt really comfortable with Portland. I had never been west of Chicago by the time I graduated from law school, so this was completely new. I think it probably horrified my parents that I was going so far away.

Q: You’ve been awarded several major honors. A: I received the professionalism award from the Oregon State Bar Association—from their civil litigation section—in March of 2001, so I was very honored. … I was absolutely flabbergasted when I received [the award] from the Multnomah Bar in 2009. Having been president of that organization, I really honored and respected the people who had received the award before me and [have] since. … Litigation can promote a lot of acrimony. There are a lot of opportunities for confrontation: disputes over discovery, disputes during deposition, disagreements leading up to trial. There are a lot of opportunities to have “the evil twin” come out, who doesn’t have professionalism as their mantra. I think getting an award like this actually is as much of a burden as a blessing. … You’ve got to really ask yourself, are you acting in a way which is consistent with this award that you’ve received?

Q: What are your favorite and least favorite
parts of the job?

A: Certainly my favorite parts are working with the clients. I really enjoy the process of getting to know them and to understand how they find themselves in the situation that now requires my services. My ultimate favorite part is being in trial. My least favorite part is all the paperwork.