Background
Jill Bong, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Douglas County Circuit Court seeking to compel Joe LaFontaine, the superintendent of Douglas County School District 15, to comply with Oregon’s Public Records Law and respond to an outstanding public records request. Before the assigned judge had ruled on any substantive pleadings, Bong filed a motion to disqualify that judge, accompanied by a supporting affidavit asserting her good-faith belief that she could not receive a fair and impartial hearing. Under ORS 14.260(1)—Oregon’s judge-disqualification statute—a party may seek a change of judge in any circuit court proceeding by filing a motion and affidavit stating that belief; no specific grounds are required.
The disqualification motion was referred to a second Douglas County judge, who denied it without scheduling a hearing and without any judge challenging Bong’s assertion of good faith. None of Bong’s subsequent objections to the assigned judge’s continued participation were addressed. Her case was ultimately dismissed, and she appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed by ORS 14.260(1). Under that statute, once a party files a conforming motion and supporting affidavit asserting a good-faith belief in bias or partiality, the motion “shall be allowed”—unless the assigned judge or the presiding judge challenges the affiant’s good faith and sets forth the basis of the challenge. If such a challenge is made, the movant is entitled to a hearing before a disinterested judge, and the burden shifts to the objecting judge to show that the motion was filed in bad faith or for purposes of delay.
Here, no judge challenged Bong’s good faith or provided any basis for a challenge. Because no formal challenge was lodged, ORS 14.260(1) required the motion to be granted automatically. The court rejected the respondent’s arguments about the substantive adequacy of Bong’s affidavit, explaining that those arguments were procedurally premature: the statute’s plain text forecloses merits review of the affidavit unless a judge has first invoked the challenge procedure. Absent a challenge and subsequent hearing, the denial was legal error.
The court also rejected a separate assignment of error seeking to disqualify opposing counsel. Bong alleged that counsel had a conflict of interest because his self-interest in keeping billing records private was causing him to misadvise his clients. The court found no authority supporting the proposition that a litigant can invoke Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct conflict-of-interest rules against an attorney with whom she has never had an attorney-client relationship.
Key Takeaways
- Under ORS 14.260(1), a motion to disqualify a circuit court judge “shall be allowed” once a party files a conforming motion and supporting affidavit—there is no substantive review of the affidavit unless the assigned or presiding judge formally challenges the movant’s good faith.
- If a judge does challenge good faith, the movant is entitled to a hearing before a disinterested judge; the burden falls on the objecting judge to demonstrate bad faith or dilatory purpose.
- A litigant cannot invoke ORPC conflict-of-interest provisions to disqualify opposing counsel absent a prior attorney-client relationship with that counsel.
Why It Matters
Oregon’s judge-disqualification statute (ORS 14.260(1)) is deliberately designed to set a “low bar” for obtaining a change of judge before any substantive rulings are made—a policy grounded in the state’s interest in maintaining public confidence in its courts. Bong confirms and illustrates the statute’s mandatory character: a properly filed disqualification motion is functionally self-executing unless a judge invokes the specific challenge-and-hearing procedure the statute prescribes. Arguing the merits of the affidavit without first lodging a formal good-faith challenge is procedurally insufficient to support a denial.
For Oregon practitioners, the practical implications run in both directions. Counsel representing a party with impartiality concerns should recognize that a conforming motion and affidavit are generally sufficient, with no need to plead specific facts. Courts and opposing counsel should understand that denial requires the prescribed two-step—a formal good-faith challenge followed by a hearing before a disinterested judge—and that skipping those steps will not survive appellate review. The decision also clarifies the limits of attorney-disqualification motions under the ORPC: only a former or current client has standing to invoke those rules against an attorney.