Court Opinion

ID: 9794255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:02:10.751733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:29.106650
License: Public Domain

JOSEPH, C. J.,
dissenting.
Guided only by a kind heart and some sort of conscience, the majority decides both that the late filed petition for court-appointed attorney fees should be considered and that it should be allowed. Unfortunately, the state of the majority’s heart and conscience helps very little in the long run; it only helps to decide this particular matter. ORAP 11.11 is mandatory: “[A] claim for court-appointed attorney fees and reimbursement of costs must be served and filed within 21 days after the date of a decision.” Although the words of ORS 138.500(3) permit this court to grant “further time” to file a petition, the rule reflects the historical and uniform practice not to allow motions for extensions of time to file applications for court-appointed attorney fees. That practice has had at least the virtues of being clear-cut, being easy to follow and requiring no hair-splitting distinctions.
The majority would establish a new practice without any underlying principle for guidance. Under ORS 2.550 and the operating practices of this court, the Chief Judge has the *435primary administrative responsibility. That has included handling much of the motion practice and virtually all of the motion practice relating to questions such as extensions of time. In this instance, the court-appointed attorney made no showing that she could not reasonably have filed her request for attorney fees timely. Instead, she presents a sincere and touching story that reveals that she made choices of what she would do and would not do during the time when she was able to be active in her practice. She made a choice not to make a timely request for payment.
The majority sees the matter differently. I can find no principle in the majority’s words by which to determine whether to allow motions for extensions of time to file applications and whether to allow late filed motions. It would be a shameful waste of time for every motion and application in this category to be reviewed by the whole court, but that is apparently what the majority wants. So be it.
I dissent.
Richardson and Warren, JJ., join in this dissent.