I had the pleasure of watching my dear friend and colleague Maureen Leonard argue Paul v. Providence in the Oregon Supreme Court today. She did a fabulous job of articulating our position, both in her briefing and at oral argument.
The Oregon Supreme Court was not at full strength. Justice Durham has been out of town this week but will participate in decision of the case. Justice Kistler apparently recused himself. One of the things that struck me as I listened to argument and the questions from the bench is how lucky we are in Oregon to have the kind of judiciary that we do.
Don’t misunderstand me. We could easily lose this case. Some of the individual questions from the judges were not friendly to us or our theories about why Providence should have to account for breaching confidentiality of 350,000 patients’ medical records. But still, there is a genuine desire in the Supreme Court to get things right and an openness that strikes me as Oregon at its best.
The defense argued strongly. They have the benefit of having won at the trial court and Oregon Court of Appeals. Still, I like how things went today.
It can take the Supreme Court a long time to issue an opinion. All of us who toil in the courts know that how oral argument felt is often not much of a predictor of the outcome. So I don’t put a lot of significance in Maureen’s great day. Still, you have to feel good when it seems like the court understands your position.
All of this is from something of a skewed perspective. I am the guy who lost in both lower courts. My work was the basis of heavy defense criticism in oral argument today. Still, I am convinced that we are right. And of course we will see it through to the end.