The Oregon Supreme Court reversed both the Court of Appeals and circuit court in *Moore-Reed v. Griffin*, a legal malpractice case involving allegations that a criminal defense attorney's negligence resulted in serious consequences for his client. The court issued its decision en banc on December 18, 2025, indicating the case's importance to Oregon's legal community.
Aisling Tucker Moore-Reed brought the malpractice action against Anthony Griffin, alleging that Griffin's negligence as her criminal defense lawyer led to her being charged with murder, incarcerated pretrial, and subjected to unwanted publicity. Moore-Reed claimed she suffered both economic and noneconomic damages as a result of Griffin's alleged professional failures.
The case originated in Jackson County Circuit Court, where Judge Timothy C. Gerking presided. The trial court granted Griffin's motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Moore-Reed's claims before trial. The court relied on the Oregon Supreme Court's precedent in *Stevens v. Bispham*, though the specific application of that decision was not detailed in the available portion of the opinion.
Moore-Reed appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion in 2024 affirming the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals' brief treatment of the case, evidenced by its nonprecedential status, suggested the appellate panel found no clear error in the trial court's reasoning.
The case attracted significant attention from Oregon's legal community, as evidenced by the multiple amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court. The Oregon Justice Resource Center and Oregon Trial Lawyers Association jointly filed an amicus brief through counsel Amy Bruning of D'Amore Law Group and Rhett Fraser of The Fraser Law Firm. The Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund also filed an amicus brief through attorneys Janet M. Schroer and Ruth A. Casby of Hart Wagner LLP.
The involvement of these organizations suggests the case raised important questions about professional liability standards for criminal defense attorneys in Oregon. The Oregon Trial Lawyers Association's participation indicates potential implications for plaintiff attorneys pursuing malpractice claims, while the Professional Liability Fund's brief suggests concerns about how the ruling might affect attorney liability insurance and risk assessment.
Larry R. Roloff of Eugene represented Moore-Reed before the Supreme Court, while Julie A. Smith of Cosgrave Vergeer Kester represented Griffin. The case was argued and submitted on May 8, 2025, with the court taking more than seven months to issue its decision.
Justice Masih authored the opinion for the court, which reversed both lower court decisions and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The en banc consideration means all justices of the Oregon Supreme Court participated in the decision, rather than the typical three-judge panel, emphasizing the case's significance.
The reversal suggests the Oregon Supreme Court found error in how the lower courts applied legal malpractice standards, particularly in the context of criminal defense representation. Legal malpractice cases involving criminal defense attorneys present unique challenges, as plaintiffs must typically prove both that their attorney was negligent and that they would have achieved a better outcome with competent representation.
The reference to *Stevens v. Bispham* in the trial court's reasoning indicates the case involved interpretation of established Oregon precedent regarding legal malpractice claims. The Supreme Court's reversal suggests either that the lower courts misapplied *Stevens* or that the court sought to clarify or modify its application in criminal defense contexts.
For Moore-Reed, the reversal means her case will return to Jackson County Circuit Court, where she will have the opportunity to proceed with her claims against Griffin. The remand for "further proceedings" suggests the Supreme Court did not resolve all issues in the case but rather corrected legal errors that prevented proper consideration of her claims.
The decision could have broader implications for how Oregon courts evaluate legal malpractice claims against criminal defense attorneys. Given the serious nature of Moore-Reed's allegations involving murder charges and pretrial detention, the case may establish important precedent for measuring damages in criminal defense malpractice cases.
The case also highlights the intersection between criminal and civil law, as Moore-Reed's civil malpractice claim stems directly from her experience in the criminal justice system. This crossover creates complex legal questions about causation and damages that the Supreme Court's decision may help clarify.
While the full text of the opinion was not available, the reversal and remand suggest the Oregon Supreme Court found the case presented triable issues that should not have been resolved through summary judgment. This indicates that reasonable jurors could differ on whether Griffin's representation fell below professional standards and whether any negligence caused Moore-Reed's alleged damages.