Evidence Code

ORS 40.227
Rule 503-1. Right of client to communicate with lawyer

  • inadmissibility of evidence obtained or disclosed without client’s consent


As used in this section, “client,” “confidential communication,” “lawyer” and “representative of the lawyer” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege).


A client has a right to privately communicate with the client’s lawyer and representatives of the lawyer.


(a) Any evidence derived from a confidential communication that is privileged under ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege), between a client and the client’s lawyer or a representative of the lawyer, is inadmissible in any proceeding to which the client is a party if the confidential communication was obtained or disclosed without the consent of the client.


Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to evidence offered by the client. [2019 c.169 §1]
Note: 40.227 (Rule 503-1. Right of client to communicate with lawyer) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 40 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Chapter 40


Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in proceeding governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, materially exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitution. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates minimum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identification evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Citations

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annotations are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adoption of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021