A group of outside attorneys have asked the court for leave to represent certain fire survivors in a class action lawsuit against PacifiCorp, though their lists include individuals who may not belong to the class.
On Oct. 9 and Nov. 8, attorney George McCoy, with Warren Allen LLP, submitted separate motions for substitution of counsel in James et al vs. PacifiCorp in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
McCoy said the motions were in response to a Sept. 6 ruling by Judge Steffan Alexander affirming the right of class members to change attorneys if they so choose.
As of press time the motions remained pending.
The suit is heading to a series of damages trials throughout 2025, with 1,536 individual claims for damages currently pending.
Warren Allen and associated firms Swigart Law Group and Spreter & Peteprin APC have been heavily promoting settlements with PacifiCorp through their firms rather than continued litigation through class counsel.
The Oct. 9 motion named 703 clients, and the Nov. 8 motion named 337 clients, all of whom McCoy said desired other representation than lead counsel.
However McCoy also said an unspecified number of these individuals may not fit the definition of the class, and the motions did not specify how many clients were parties to the James suit.
“We acknowledge that some of the individuals, entities and/or estates listed are outside of the fire zone and are provided for transparency and informational purposes,” said McCoy in declarations filed with both motions.
The Canyon Weekly reached out to McCoy to learn what he meant by “transparency and informational purposes” and specifically how many individuals named are among the class. McCoy did not respond by press time.
A Nov. 24 court filing by McCoy in support of the Oct. 9 motion said he could not provide a clear figure of how many clients named in the motion were among the class. He said this was because different lawsuits consolidated with James have used differing definitions of class members, and that class counsel have not clarified for the outside forms which definition(s) they are depending on.
The definition of class members used in the three trials so far in James was established by court order in 2022 and included those who lived in, owned property in or experienced fire activity within the burn boundaries of the Santiam, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and 242 fires on Sept. 7, 2020.
McCoy said Nov. 24, if this definition is used, then “it is believed that 622 individuals may still be represented by James Counsel.” If broader definitions from consolidated cases are used, 74 additional individuals may be included from among those named in the Oct. 9 motion.
There was no accounting for the remaining seven names listed in the motion.
McCoy said, regardless of whether or not any named individuals are among the class, it was important for the court to grant the motion so there was a clear distinction between who was represented by the three firms and who was represented by class counsel.
“The substitution of counsel ensures that all individuals, class members or not, are aligned with their chosen representation moving forward,” said McCoy.
As of press time, clarification of the Nov. 8 motion had not been filed with the court.
Class counsel has objected to the motions because of the ambiguity about the class status of named individuals and multiple other alleged deficiencies.
In objections filed Nov. 8 and 21, class counsel said if any named individuals belong to separate lawsuits then appropriate motions should be filed with those suits. They argued, if any persons listed in the motions do not belong to the James class, then there is no basis for the motions to be filed and they should be denied.
They also argued McCoy failed to demonstrate “good and sufficient cause” for the substitution, a requirement affirmed in the Sept. 6 ruling. Class counsel said this requirement is not satisfied “simply because the class members have purportedly expressed a desire to be excluded from Lead Counsel’s representation.”
They also said the outside firms used allegedly unethical practices to solicit class members in violation of the Sept. 6 ruling and Oregon’s codes of conduct. In addition to affirming class members’ right to change counsel, Alexander affirmed that attorneys other than class counsel may not communicate with class members except through class counsel.
Additionally class counsel raised concerns that certain members of the three outside firms have been practicing law in Oregon without a license and without temporary court approval to represent Oregon clients.
In the Nov. 24 filing, McCoy said they have fully complied with the requirements for a motion to substitute counsel and called class counsel’s opposition baseless.
McCoy said no codes of conduct were violated and that any class members who communicated with the outside firms initiated said communication.
He also said the issue of licensure was not problematic because he and multiple other attorneys among the firms are licensed to practice in Oregon. He said those not yet licensed “plan” to file for temporary leave from the court to practice in regard to the 2020 wildfires.
