The Oregon Supreme Court decided Monday not to hear a case brought by Medford lawyer Michael Bertholf challenging forced judicial appointments.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied Monday a Medford lawyer’s

request

for the justices to hear his arguments over forced judicial appointments, leaving a byproduct of the public defender shortage crisis dead in the water, at least for now. On behalf of the court, Oregon Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Duncan issued the order, “while recognizing the importance of the legal issues presented in the petition” brought by Medford-based criminal defense lawyer Michael Bertholf. The justices’ order, only two pages, did not elaborate further.

“They said it’s an important question, and I think what they’re doing is waiting for a case that’s a little bit stronger, where the judge digs his or her heels in and won’t let the person off even when the Supreme Court says, ‘Let the person off,’” Bertholf said in an interview after learning of the court’s decision. Bertholf had filed a motion Oct. 18 asking the high court to examine whether it is lawful for trial courts to force lawyers to represent clients over the lawyers’ objections. The motion came even after a Douglas County Circuit Court judge rescinded his Aug. 23 appointment of Bertholf to represent a defendant even though the Medford lawyer objected. In his most recent motion, Bertholf argued that state statute allowed the justices to hear a case that was moot. But, as Bertholf and his appellate lawyer, Laura Graser, learned Monday, the court disagreed. In an interview, Graser said she did not take the court’s rejection of her motion too hard. “To me, an effective lawyer — any kind of lawyer — you really need to allocate your heart,” she said. “This is a case that more occupies my brain rather than my heart.” In analyzing the justices’ order, Graser noted how it touched upon the legal importance of the issues raised by Bertholf even though the court denied his latest motion. “I think they’re saying, ‘This is worth our time, but it’s not in a position that we want to take it,’” Graser said. She said, as well, that the justices may have felt that Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George William Ambrosini’s decision to vacate Bertholf’s appointment to represent Aurelio Sandoval did not make a larger case examining the issue of forced appointments palatable. “(The justices) already sent an alternative writ. They already said that the circuit court made a mistake — and the circuit court agreed and reversed itself,” Graser said. “So, they already made a big statement.” Graser is not sure what will happen going forward on the issue of circuit court judges forcing lawyers to take on cases. “We’ll see. I think that lawyers out there know if somebody forces an appointment on them, there’s something that can be done about it,” Graser said. “If Oregon Public Defense Services doesn’t hear from anybody, then we’ll know that the Supreme Court sent a message that they can’t do this.” But Bertholf acknowledged some judges might still want to force lawyers into representation, which is why they should “be prepared” to argue against it in court. “’Be prepared’ is the Boy Scout motto,” said Bertholf, a former Boy Scout.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied Monday a Medford lawyer’s request for the justices to hear his arguments over forced judicial appointments, leaving a byproduct of the public defender shortage crisis dead in the water, at least for now.

On behalf of the court, Oregon Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Duncan issued the order, “while recognizing the importance of the legal issues presented in the petition” brought by Medford-based criminal defense lawyer Michael Bertholf. The justices’ order, only two pages, did not elaborate further.

“They said it’s an important question, and I think what they’re doing is waiting for a case that’s a little bit stronger, where the judge digs his or her heels in and won’t let the person off even when the Supreme Court says, ‘Let the person off,’” Bertholf said in an interview after learning of the court’s decision.

Bertholf had filed a motion Oct. 18 asking the high court to examine whether it is lawful for trial courts to force lawyers to represent clients over the lawyers’ objections. The motion came even after a Douglas County Circuit Court judge rescinded his Aug. 23 appointment of Bertholf to represent a defendant even though the Medford lawyer objected.

In his most recent motion, Bertholf argued that state statute allowed the justices to hear a case that was moot.

But, as Bertholf and his appellate lawyer, Laura Graser, learned Monday, the court disagreed.

In an interview, Graser said she did not take the court’s rejection of her motion too hard.

“To me, an effective lawyer — any kind of lawyer — you really need to allocate your heart,” she said. “This is a case that more occupies my brain rather than my heart.”

In analyzing the justices’ order, Graser noted how it touched upon the legal importance of the issues raised by Bertholf even though the court denied his latest motion.

“I think they’re saying, ‘This is worth our time, but it’s not in a position that we want to take it,’” Graser said.

She said, as well, that the justices may have felt that Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George William Ambrosini’s decision to vacate Bertholf’s appointment to represent Aurelio Sandoval did not make a larger case examining the issue of forced appointments palatable.

“(The justices) already sent an alternative writ. They already said that the circuit court made a mistake — and the circuit court agreed and reversed itself,” Graser said. “So, they already made a big statement.”

Graser is not sure what will happen going forward on the issue of circuit court judges forcing lawyers to take on cases.

“We’ll see. I think that lawyers out there know if somebody forces an appointment on them, there’s something that can be done about it,” Graser said. “If Oregon Public Defense Services doesn’t hear from anybody, then we’ll know that the Supreme Court sent a message that they can’t do this.”

But Bertholf acknowledged some judges might still want to force lawyers into representation, which is why they should “be prepared” to argue against it in court.

“’Be prepared’ is the Boy Scout motto,” said Bertholf, a former Boy Scout.