Miller Nash LLP

Best attorneys in the area. They have integrity and heart. Very fair billing practices.

Best law firm, full stop!

Some of the best people I know. By far best firm in the area.

Best attorneys - in good hands.

If you need an attorney, they have those here.

Update 2/22/23: Ms Rawlinson apparently updated her original analysis and thankfully made some corrections so I am upgrading her stars from 1 to 2. Ms. Rawlinson recently posted a severely flawed analysis of my recent Oregon Supreme Court win in the case Lowell v. Wright/Artistic Piano 369 Or 806. In it, Matthew Wright, a clinically diagnosed sociopath and convicted childmolesterrapist, while working as the undisclosed manager of a close competitor's piano store, and using an alias, posted a Google review of a (made up) conversation with a (made up) dishonest salesman at Plaintiff's piano store in order to steer customers to his own business for personal financial gain. But there was no conversation, there was no dishonest salesman...yet those facts aren't important to Ms. Rawlinson, who instead makes it seem like "smells like grandma's attic" was the lynchpin defamatory statement, when that review statement was not even at issue at the Supreme Court. So, rather than providing readers with an accurate rendition of the facts, Ms. Rawlinson slants her presentation in order to promote her undisclosed agenda. I suppose if you are an insurance company footing the bill for the defense of sociopaths like Matthew Wright, having someone like Ms. Rawlinson on your payroll makes financial sense, but for a civilized society, it's detrimental. Another example: Ms. Rawlinson claims Mr. Wright wasn't working for Artistic Piano at the time the review was made, while leaving out that Wright was working in his own store on the same day that the visit took place and the review written. Ms. Rawlinson appears to be too comfortable changing or leaving out the facts in order to suit her false narrative. In addition, the reason why Artistic Piano never denied Wright was acting as an agent for it (which Rawlinson can't figure out) is because: 1. Artistic Piano was in on the hoax (remember Jussie Smollett?), 2. without Artistic Piano's insurance company funding his legal expenses, Wright would be tempted to cut a deal with the prosecution and tell the truth about Artistic Piano's involvement, and thus implicate Artistic Piano in the hoax (as the Osundairo brothers did with Smollett when their legal expenses weren't being covered by Smollett). This explains Artistic Piano's strategy to not dispute Wright's agency relationship with Artistic Piano, thus enabling his legal expenses to be covered, and the conspiracy perpetuated. Finally, in Rawlinson's eyes, Wright is just a good guy who had a legitimate "interest in helping his employer," and who inadvertently "may have taken some wrong steps here," rather that the greedy sociopath unethically seeking to take unfair advantage of others, he really is. She probably thinks Jussie Smollett is also a great guy, and would defend him too!!!