Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 180.235 (2026)

Authority of agency to employ counsel; qualification and salary; status

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

180.235 Authority of agency to employ counsel; qualification and salary; status. (1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, whenever the Attorney General concludes that it is inappropriate and contrary to the public interest for the office of the Attorney General to concurrently represent more than one public officer or agency in a particular matter or class of matters in circumstances which would create or tend to create a conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General, the Attorney General may authorize one or both of such officers or agencies to employ its own general or special counsel in the particular matter or class of matters and in related matters. Such authorization may be terminated by the Attorney General whenever the Attorney General determines that separate representation is no longer appropriate.

(2) Any counsel so employed shall be a licensee of the Oregon State Bar and shall be paid a salary or other compensation out of the funds appropriated to such officer or agency.

(3) In any matter in which the Attorney General has authorized employment of such counsel, any references to representation of such officer or agency by the Attorney General contained in any provision of law shall be deemed to refer to such counsel. [1971 c.418 §8; 2025 c.32 §94]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Frohnmayer v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 660 P.2d 1061 (Or. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frohnmayer v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 660 P.2d 1061 (Or. 1983). · cites it 15× “This authorization, pursuant to ORS 180.235, arose because of a perceived conflict of interest in the Attorney General’s representation of both SAIF and the Workers’ Compensation Board, an adjudicative body before which SAIF regularly appeared.”

Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “" Davidson thus asserts that SAIF's General Counsel was acting within his authority delegated by the state Attorney General under ORS 180.235, which permits SAIF to employ its own counsel who performs the role of an assistant attorney general.”

Marteeny v. Brown, 517 P.3d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 180.235(1). Cite as 321 Or App 250 (2022) 271 Finally, as relevant here, the legislature has pro- vided that, when district attorneys conduct prosecutions, they do so “on behalf of the state”: “The district attorney shall attend the terms of all courts having jurisdiction…”

Eggsman v. State Bd. of Parole, 653 P.2d 1277 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If on the other hand, there is an *384 unresolved difference of opinion between lawyer and client as to the Board’s authority, we should have expected ORS 180.235 to come into play. See also ORS 180.”

Frohnmayer v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 655 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “ORS 180.235(1) provides: “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, whenever the Attorney General concludes that it is inappropriate and contrary to the public interest for his office to concurrently represent more than one public officer or agency in a particular…”

Hanggi ex rel. Oregon Pub. Employees Ret. Fund v. Hartford Fire Ins., 889 P.2d 365 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “” See also ORS 180.235 (describing Attorney General’s authority to allow state officers and agencies to retain outside counsel).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 180.235(1) — 3 cases

Frohnmayer v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 660 P.2d 1061 (Or. 1983). “This authorization, pursuant to ORS 180.235, arose because of a perceived conflict of interest in the Attorney General’s representation of both SAIF and the Workers’ Compensation Board, an adjudicative body before which SAIF regularly appeared.”

Frohnmayer v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 655 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 180.235(1) provides: “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, whenever the Attorney General concludes that it is inappropriate and contrary to the public interest for his office to concurrently represent more than one public officer or agency in a particular…”

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.