Oregon court rules & publisher orders

Search a rule number or topic in circuit-court local rules and statewide UTCR. County filters select sources; they do not determine the court, venue or applicable law.

36 Oregon counties · 27 local rulebooks · 24 UTCR chapter PDFs

Machine-extracted or machine-OCR source text, not independently validated legal requirements. Later amendments, case orders, exceptions, signatures, service, fees and deadlines require original-source review. Reserved and repealed chapters do not create requirements.

Reserved and repealed-only chapters are retained as such. Amendment and supplemental orders are searched separately because their extracted text may include deleted or superseded provisions. Some scans have machine OCR, visibly labeled and unreviewed. Remaining scans have original-source links only. Verify all text and amendment markings in the PDF.

Official local rules ↗ · Official current UTCR ↗

2432 indexed entries · 167 publisher order documents · county orders in 30 counties

County coverage and remaining source gaps

All 36 counties have a mapped SLR rulebook. Supplemental orders remain incomplete. A zero below means no retained order in this collection; it does not mean that the court has no orders. OCR counts are machine-recognized documents, not legal review.

CountyNumbered SLR entriesCounty order PDFsOCR order PDFsSource-only order PDFs
Baker32320
Benton42110
Clackamas80833
Clatsop49100
Columbia18200
Coos3927913
Crook44101
Curry3926913
Deschutes3616213
Douglas56915
Gilliam22000
Grant132200
Harney132100
Hood River22000
Jackson621000
Jefferson44101
Josephine66100
Klamath55100
Lake37000
Lane68100
Lincoln64200
Linn30531
Malheur61110
Marion63310
Morrow89500
Multnomah210100
Polk401516
Sherman22000
Tillamook59210
Umatilla89400
Union65100
Wallowa65100
Wasco22000
Washington5825111
Wheeler22000
Yamhill52100

Search public rule numbers or topics. Leave out names, case numbers and private document text.

Browse rule topics

CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules — physical PDF page 96

CJO 2026-021 — Adoption of Amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules · physical PDF page 96 · 2026

A-38 
2. 3.170—ASSOCIATION OF OUT -OF-STATE COUNSEL (PRO HAC VICE) 
  
Amended out of cycle to increase the pro hac vice application fee. 
 
ACTION TAKEN 
Amendment of the rule was preliminarily recommended by consensus at 
the UTCR Committee’s fall meeting on October 24, 2025.  The rule was 
then amended out of cycle by SCO 25-054, effective January 1, 2026. 
 
EXPLANATION 
This proposal was submitted by Myah Kehoe, President of OSB, on behalf 
of the OSB Board of Governors.  It amends UTCR 3.170(6) to increase the 
pro hac vice application fee from $500 to $750 dollars, effective January 1, 
2026. 
 
At the fall 2025 meeting, the proponent provided testimony explaining the 
need for the fee increase as follows.  The pro hac vice application fee has 
not been increased since July 1, 2014, when it was raised to $500.  
Increasing the fee to $750 reflects inflationary increases and aligns the fee 
with the current administrative costs associated with processing pro hac 
vice applications.  According to Consumer Price Index data, $500 in 2014 
equates to approximately $679 today and $699 by 2026, which is the 
anticipated effective date of the proposed increase if adopted. 
 
The pro hac vice application fee serves two important purposes: 
• Subsidizing the Bar’s processing of pro hac vice applications; and 
• Supporting the Legal Services Program, ORS 9.241(4). 
 
Six percent (6%) of pro hac vice application fees (approximately $30 per 
application) currently are allocated to the Bar’s Regulatory Counsel’s Office 
for processing pro hac vice applications.  The remaining ninety-four percent 
(94%) directly support legal aid through the Legal Services Program.  
However, the actual cost of processing pro hac vice applications has 
increased to nearly eight percent (8%) ($40 per application) of the current 
$500 fee.  To account for the higher cost, the Bar’s Regulatory Counsel’s 
Office subsidizes the cost out of its own budget to avoid reducing the Legal 
Services Program funding.  Thus, increasing the pro hac vice application 
fee will:  (1) cover the increased cost of processing pro hac vice 
applications; (2) realign funding of legal services that has diminished due to 
inflation; and (3) ensure that the pro hac vice fee structure remains 
sustainable in the long term. 
 
At the fall meeting, the committee voted by consensus to recommend 
approval and further recommended making the change out of cycle 
because the fee has not increased since 2014 and the Bar needs a timely

Open publisher PDF at this page ↗

Machine-extracted PDF text, unreviewed.

Captured 2026-10-18T22:31:09.969140+00:00 · Chief Justice amendment order effective 2026-08-01; original amendment document, not consolidated rule text Only approved-change pages1-25 and out-of-cycle amendment pages94-101 are indexed. Disapproved proposals, deferred recommendations and administrative actions on pages26-93 and102-105 remain source context only. This packet is not consolidated rule text; dates differ by provision.

Publisher order or amendment document. Deleted/added wording and operative scope must be read in the original; do not treat every extracted sentence as an active rule.

Source provenance

machine_extracted_unreviewed

SHA-256 4d3584770d44af58f80c4ebf07da611b26a865195202c369dba2f465261fb0a5

Publisher URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/UTCR/CJO_2026-021.pdf