Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095 (2026)

Fees, costs and disbursements payable in protective proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      125.095 Fees, costs and disbursements payable in protective proceedings. (1) Funds of a person subject to a protective proceeding may be used to pay reasonable fees, costs and disbursements to any visitor, attorney, physician, fiduciary or temporary fiduciary for services related to the protective proceeding or for services provided on behalf of a fiduciary, respondent, petitioner, cross-petitioner, objector or protected person.

      (2) Prior court approval is required before the payment of fees from the funds of a person subject to a protective proceeding when the payment is to:

      (a) A physician if the fees are incurred for services relating to proceedings arising out of the filing of an objection to a petition, cross-petition or motion.

      (b) An appointed fiduciary, except that prior court approval is not required before payment of fees to a conservator if the conservator is a trust company that has complied with ORS 709.030, or if the conservator is the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

      (c) Any attorney who has provided services relating to a protective proceeding, including services provided in preparation or anticipation of the filing of a petition in a protective proceeding.

      (3) Subject to ORS 125.495 to 125.520, prior court approval is not required before:

      (a) Payment of attorney fees incurred prior to the filing of a petition in a protective proceeding for services unrelated to the protective proceeding; or

      (b) Payment for services provided by an attorney who is hired as a mediator for mediation services related to a protective proceeding.

      (4) A pleading that alleges a basis for payment of attorney fees is not required before payment of attorney fees is approved or made under this section.

      (5) ORCP 68 does not apply to requests for approval and payment of attorney fees made under this chapter. [1995 c.664 §15; 1997 c.631 §409; 2005 c.625 §65; 2013 c.99 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P. C., 273 P.3d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P. C., 273 P.3d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 34× “The trustees contend on appeal that the trial court erred in awarding fees pursuant to ORS 125.095. Because we conclude that ORS 125.”
Caswell v. Day Law & Assocs., P. C., 481 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “3 ORS 125.095 has been amended since our decision in Dorszynski such that the subsection numbers are now different but not such that it affects our analysis here.”
In re McGraw, 414 P.3d 841 (Or. 2018). “In this case, he argues, his fee requests were submitted to court for approval pursuant to ORS 125.095, which requires prior court approval before the payment of fees from the funds of a person subject to a protective proceeding.”
Dorszynski v. Dept. of Human Servs., 242 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “445(25) and ORS 125.095, and that, until court approval is received, Phillips still has a legal interest in the resource.”
Worley v. Lewis, 567 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “The Bank requested attorney fees under ORS 125.095, which allows a fee award in a protective pro- ceeding subject to consideration of various factors.”
Dorszynski v. Dep't of Human Servs., 242 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “445(25) and ORS 125.095, and that, until court approval is received, Phillips still has a legal interest in the resource.”
Louie v. Louie, 506 P.3d 1187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “Although it is undisputed that the protected person has no funds or other assets of her own, pursuant to ORS 125.095, the pro- bate court ordered guardian to pay appointed counsel’s fees on a payment plan paralleling the schedule on which he was paying the attorney fees he…”
Wendy K. Johnson v. Leslie S. Johnson (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 2× “Defendant’s attorney in those proceedings petitioned for attorney fees pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095 . ECF No. 1-1 at 15-35.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095(1) — 2 cases
Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P. C., 273 P.3d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “The trustees contend on appeal that the trial court erred in awarding fees pursuant to ORS 125.095. Because we conclude that ORS 125.”
Louie v. Louie, 506 P.3d 1187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Although it is undisputed that the protected person has no funds or other assets of her own, pursuant to ORS 125.095, the pro- bate court ordered guardian to pay appointed counsel’s fees on a payment plan paralleling the schedule on which he was paying the attorney fees he…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095(2) — 2 cases
Caswell v. Day Law & Assocs., P. C., 481 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “3 ORS 125.095 has been amended since our decision in Dorszynski such that the subsection numbers are now different but not such that it affects our analysis here.”
Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & Wilkinson, P. C., 273 P.3d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “The trustees contend on appeal that the trial court erred in awarding fees pursuant to ORS 125.095. Because we conclude that ORS 125.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095(2)(c) — 1 case
Caswell v. Day Law & Assocs., P. C., 481 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “3 ORS 125.095 has been amended since our decision in Dorszynski such that the subsection numbers are now different but not such that it affects our analysis here.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.095(3) — 2 cases
Dorszynski v. Dept. of Human Servs., 242 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “445(25) and ORS 125.095, and that, until court approval is received, Phillips still has a legal interest in the resource.”
Dorszynski v. Dep't of Human Servs., 242 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “445(25) and ORS 125.095, and that, until court approval is received, Phillips still has a legal interest in the resource.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.