Relating to the use of outside counsel by the Department of Justice; prescribing an effective date.
Senate Bill 746 requires the Oregon Department of Justice to provide an annual report on its use of outside counsel when defending state agencies in lawsuits. The report must be submitted by March 1 each year to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means and the legislative committees related to the judiciary, and it must cover the prior calendar year. The required information includes the law firms retained, amounts paid and outstanding, the agencies defended, case names and docket numbers, attorney hours billed, hourly rates, and details about the selection process, contract provisions, and deliverables.
The bill also requires a one-time expanded report due March 1, 2026, covering calendar years beginning in 2022. That first report must identify the three law firms receiving the highest total payments for legal defense work in each year covered, the total fees and costs paid to those firms, and the number and identities of the cases assigned to them. The measure takes effect 91 days after adjournment of the 2025 regular session.
SB 746 would not change substantive law governing lawsuits or the authority of the Department of Justice to hire outside counsel, but it would add a new statutory reporting obligation and increase legislative oversight of state legal defense spending. It would require DOJ to collect and disclose detailed financial, case-level, and contracting information about outside counsel used to defend state agencies, including historical data beginning in 2022 for the first report. The measure would affect the Department of Justice, state agencies defended in litigation, and law firms retained as outside counsel.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears oversight-oriented and administrative rather than controversial, suggesting a generally neutral or potentially favorable posture focused on transparency and accountability. The listed sponsors from both parties also suggest the bill may have had bipartisan appeal.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth and sensitivity of the required disclosures. The bill would require publication of detailed information about legal defense spending, specific cases, hourly rates, contract terms, and political contributions over $750 by attorneys, partners, or agents of the firms involved. Supporters would likely view these disclosures as necessary for transparency and fiscal oversight, while critics could raise concerns about confidentiality, litigation strategy, administrative burden, or the relevance of political contribution reporting to procurement decisions.