Court Opinion

ID: 9557983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:20.852288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:03.649600
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the views expressed by Howell, J., in his concurring opinion. We may believe that this statute, as enacted by the 1975 Oregon Legislature, is unfair and unjust as applied to complaints against lawyers, but we cannot properly deny the power of the legisla*296ture to enact such a statute for the reasons stated by the majority.
I dissent, however, from the opinion by the majority insofar as it appears to apply the provisions of ORS 192.410 et seq. retroactively, so as to permit public access to complaints made against lawyers prior to the effective date of that statute on July 1, 1973.
In Joseph v. Lowery, 261 Or 545, 547, 495 P2d 273 (1972), we approved the rule as stated in our previous decision in Kempf v. Carpenters & Joiners Union, 229 Or 337, 343, 367 P2d 436 (1961), as follows:
" '* * * Unless retroactive construction is mandatory by the terms of the act it should not be applied if such construction will impair existing rights, create new obligations or impose additional duties with respect to past transactions * * ”
We also said (at 548-49):
"* * * [T]his court has refused to give retroactive application to the provisions of statutes which affect the legal rights and obligations arising out of past actions. This is without respect to whether the change might be 'procedural or remedial’ or 'substantive’ in a strictly technical sense. * * *”
It is true that there are differences between the statutes involved in this case and in Joseph. In my view, however, the reasons for the rule as stated in Joseph are also applicable in this case.