RISE Law Group trouble.

      "Peter, whatever happened to that Medford law firm you wrote about last year? The one where you watched an eight-day trial about excessive legal fees."

The law firm is the Rise Law Group. 

They have had some trouble since I last wrote.

Amid news of national and worldwide import, I am taking a day to look at something hyper-local, the operations of the Jackson County, Oregon, courts. Why? Because most of the "liberty and justice for all" that we acknowledge in the Pledge of Allegiance takes place in local state courts like the ones here. Dysfunction at the U.S. Supreme Court gets examined; dysfunction at local courts and within a local legal community is not, yet problems there affect thousands of people. 

Eighteen months ago I heard there were problems at the Jackson County courts. Divorce cases were slow to be processed. Judges were avoiding serving in front of certain lawyers. Judges were being taken off cases. Clients were filing bar complaints. The same name kept coming up: the RISE Law Group.

The RISE Law Group has a reputation for being very aggressive in their litigation strategy and in their billing practices, which ran up costs for their divorce clients. The firm has a practice of suing former clients for unpaid bills, which leads to a high volume of client complaints to the state Bar. A client with modest income and assets, plus very limited English, had a legal bill from RISE of some $50,000. She sued RISE. The case went to trial. I spent eight days viewing that trial. I wrote about it in a March, 2024, post titled "Trouble in the Jackson County Courts." 

My blog post quoted Maryanne Pitcher, a partner in the firm, saying she knew she was unpopular, but she contended that the firm was worth the money they charge clients and that they had good reason to force judges off their cases. 

The result of that case was mixed. The jury told me after the trial that they thought the firm was more billing-focused than client-focused, but they awarded no money to the client who protested the firm's fees. That was a win for RISE. Still, the trial turned out to be costly for RISE. Because they lost on some points, they owed attorney fees to the attorneys representing the former client. Judge Charles Kochlacs, the judge in that case, determined that they owed Matthew Sutton, the lead opposing counsel, about $111,000. (That was far less than he requested, but more than RISE wanted to pay.) When the RISE Law Group went to court again, this time to protest the attorney fee judgment, it took Sutton more time and money to defend that fee, which he did successfully. This week he was awarded about $15,000 more to cover that defense. 

There is more news this week on the RISE group, this time from the Oregon Bar. The Bar announced they suspended Maryanne Pitcher from the practice of law for 120 days. [Note, see below. The suspension is pending and not now in effect.] Pitcher resisted the suspension. She claimed some of her actions at issue were affected by a mental freeze from a limbic system that "hijacks the brain," following a mental health treatment called rapid transformational therapy. The adjudicator was not persuaded. He wrote:

I find that Respondent’s claim that she suffered a medical or emotional reaction during the courtroom incident is clearly and convincingly contradicted by the video evidence. Respondent was lucid and appeared at all times to be in control of her behavior while she was in the courtroom. . . .

Further, I find that Respondent’s credibility is irreparably damaged by the fact that she offered deceptive and misleading expert testimony to support her claim. A party that is complicit in such a charade is inherently untrustworthy. 

The Bar originally suggested a 90-day suspension, but following evidence of aggravating circumstances, the Bar's adjudicator, Mark A. Turner, added another 30 days. He concluded that she had "offered a false narrative" about one of the charges and "did so knowing they were material to the Bar's investigation" and then "repeated her false assertions under oath." 

That is the fresh news from the Jackson County courts.

Yesterday I posted about filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, saying that Trump is breaking the law and he is getting bolder about it. That is controversy on a large scale. Now this, with a post about client complaints, legal fees, and 120-day bar suspensions. What small potatoes. Why bother with this? Here is why. This week's posts are all part of the same justice system, with rules that allow our complex society to function. It is good to see rules enforced up and down the justice system. Dysfunction at any level reduces confidence in the courts, and I see that taking place across the U.S. I would like to reverse that.

Sometimes our justice system gets out of whack. But sometimes the system takes steps to repair itself. I consider it reason for optimism in a tough time for justice in America.

Update and correction:  The Bar adjudicator announced a recommendation of a 120 day suspension after a review of the evidence, but the penalty does not go into effect for 30 days. Ms. Pitcher has the right to appeal the penalty to the Oregon Supreme Court. If it is appealed, they can ratify the decision of the Bar adjudicator of a 120 day suspension, or either increase or decrease the penalty.  

[Note: These are my opinions; no one else’s. My wife is an attorney. She is the Executive Director of the Center for Nonprofit Legal Services. Neither she nor CNPLS has anything to do with my blog. She doesn't even read it. She is busy providing access to justice for people in need.]

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]