Judge fights firm's attempt to recuse him from 14 family law cases

Nov. 21—A Southern Oregon law firm is seeking to remove Jackson County Circuit Court Judge David Orr from hearing more than a dozen divorce and family law cases on his docket because they "no longer feel safe" to appear in front of the judge after allegedly experiencing "unprecedented events" last month in Orr's courtroom.

RISE Law Group of Medford, composed of lawyers Maryanne Pitcher, Jamie Hazlett and Garrett Ramsey, have filed motions seeking to remove Orr for cause from 14 civil cases because they do not feel they and their clients can have a fair and impartial trial after saying they experienced "disparate treatment" in Oct. 26 and 27 hearings, according to filings in the cases.

Pitcher and Hazlett claim Orr was presiding Oct. 26 over a hearing in which they'd sought to recuse another judge, Benjamin Bloom, in a divorce case because Bloom had previously worked at the same law firm representing the opposing party, according to a motion to recuse filed Oct. 31.

According to Hazlett's signed declaration, Orr "allowed a sitting judge, Benjamin Bloom, to scream and berate us in the courtroom without admonishing the inappropriate conduct."

The following day, at a separate hearing in Orr's courtroom, Hazlett claims Orr charged Pitcher with contempt after she "asked for a reasonable break and was denied," then Pitcher left the courtroom without his permission "due to feeling ill."

"I have never seen the court deny a request for a break or illness in my 16 years of practice, let alone hold someone in contempt," Pitcher wrote in the declaration. "This treatment is disparate and indicates RISE Law Group clients cannot receive impartial treatment from Honorable David Orr."

In a Thursday hearing in front of Judge Pro Tem Paul Moser, Orr said he's fighting those attempts in part because if he's recused, only one of four Jackson County civil and family law judges would be left for RISE Law Group's cases.

"We're running out of options," Orr told Moser. "This is creating a serious bottleneck."

Lawyers representing opposing parties in at least two of the 14 divorce cases filed objections ahead of the hearing.

Lawyer Ray Churba with the Center for Nonprofit Legal Services wrote an objection Wednesday and stated RISE Law Group's motion "contains no particularity and refers only to certain dates, 'unprecedented events' and Ms. Pitcher's feelings."

"I have been present at all the sessions Judge Orr has conducted in this matter, and he's always been respectful and appropriate to all parties," Churba stated.

A lawyer in a third case, Joseph R. Davis, told the court, "We have no position."

Another lawyer requested to appear by phone to voice her objection Thursday, but she was never called on during a hearing that lasted roughly 90 minutes.

The hearing largely centered on whether Orr should be considered a "party" in the 14 cases. The answer would determine whether Orr should be ordered to provide documentation about his past recusals — especially a recusal reportedly involving the Jackson County District Attorney's Office.

Garrett Ramsey with RISE Law Group said during the hearing that, as he understood it, the court granted the DA's office a blanket request to remove Orr from all cases the DA's Office prosecutes — virtually all criminal cases tried in Jackson County Circuit Court. Ramsey said his firm wants a similar recusal.

"Our question is why those (criminal court recusals) were granted and ours were not granted," Ramsey said in court.

In response, Orr told the court, "There were no for-cause recusals from the DA." Because of that, to the best of his knowledge, Orr said the DA's office didn't have to provide a reason in any filings.

A call to District Attorney Beth Heckert was not immediately returned Friday.

In December 2020, criminal defense lawyer Justin Rosas sought to remove Orr as judge from at least 50 criminal cases on allegations Orr "cannot be fair" in Rosas' cases, which at the time involved defendants ranging from misdemeanor criminal mischief to murder, according to an earlier news report.

Orr told the court he'd comply with any order, but the Oregon Department of Justice is usually the one to handle records requests.

"They can get anything they want," Orr said. "I don't want to conceal anything."

Senior Assistant Oregon Attorney General Tracy White, who represented Orr Thursday, argued the District Attorney's recusal should not matter. She called the request "overly, overly broad."

"Whatever happened with that is not relevant," White said. "If someone else has an issue with Judge Orr, that has no particular bearing."

She argued that requiring a sitting judge on the 14 cases to provide such documentation was not relevant and highly inappropriate.

"You don't ask for discovery from the judge," White said. "Judge Orr is not a party in this case — he's still the judge."

Ramsey acknowledged the hearing was "an unusual proceeding," which he attributed to Orr contesting their request, and said it was not beyond the pale to seek documentation on Orr's past recusals.

"It's not comfortable for him; it's not comfortable for me ... but it's where we're at," Ramsey said.

Moser did not make any rulings in the hearing, stating more research was needed.

Asking aloud whether a sitting judge is required to respond to a discovery request, Moser said, "The answer is I don't know ... that's an open question for me."

White and Orr, citing scheduling bottlenecks, pressed Moser not to delay. Moser said the families involved in the cases have due process rights.

Moser issued a ruling just before 3 p.m. Friday, determining that Orr will not have to provide any documents to the law firm.

"The court finds that Judge Orr is not a 'party' as that word is defined by law," Moser said.

Moser drew from Black's Law Dictionary, which legally defines the word party as "a person whose name is designated on record as plaintiff or defendant." Moser's ruling states that a motion to recuse "is not a separate suit or action."

"Declarants are not plaintiffs. The judge is not a defendant," the ruling states. "Therefore, the statutory provisions allowing for discovery are not applicable."

Moser's ruling orders the parties to schedule another hearing in RISE Law Group's recusal request, but a hearing had not been scheduled as of Friday afternoon.

Reach web editor Nick Morgan at 541-776-4471 or nmorgan@rosebudmedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @MTwebeditor.