Choose A State
This course has been pre-approved in the following states. Please click on the state you wish to receive CLE credit for.
Can't find your state? Click here to choose your state and find CLE courses like this one in your state.

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse under Oregon LawSKU: ORSP100
Total Credits
1
Price$50
Choose A StateThis course has been pre-approved in the following states. Please click on the state you wish to receive CLE credit for. Can't find your state? Click here to choose your state and find CLE courses like this one in your state.
DescriptionOregon utilizes a mandatory reporting system to help prevent child abuse. Under Oregon’s mandatory reporting system, certain classes of professionals – including attorneys – have a legal obligation to report to government agencies when they have reasonable cause to believe that abuse has occurred. This CLE is presented by attorney Peter Janci, who has helped represent more than 100 survivors of child abuse. In this CLE, Mr. Janci will discuss the policies behind the mandatory reporting statute, the legal obligations faced by attorneys under the statute as well as the exceptions to the reporting requirements, and also the potential pitfalls and liabilities from failing to report or improperly reporting. Throughout, Mr. Janci draws on professional literature on child abuse as well as hypothetical questions and real-world examples from his own practice. This course not only helps encourage Oregon attorneys in considering their own obligations, but also helps lawyers in thinking through how to advise clients who are mandatory reporters. Lecturer BioPeter B. Janci, Esq.Peter Janci joined O’Donnell Clark & Crew LLP as an attorney in 2007. Peter practices law at O’Donnell Clark & Crew, where he practices in civil litigation and is a member of the business litigation, injury and abuse, and public law practice groups. Peter was part of the Plaintiff’s trial team in Kerry Lewis v. Boy Scouts of America, which resulted in a nearly $20 million verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in the Spring of 2010. |