Attorneys representing victims of Oregon’s 2020 wildfires have filed a motion seeking the disqualification of Oregon Court of Appeals Judge Anna Joyce from a case involving utility company PacifiCorp. The motion contends that Judge Joyce should have recused herself due to her prior representation of PacifiCorp before her appointment to the bench in 2022.
The controversy centers on a recent appellate decision that overturned over $1 billion in damages previously awarded to wildfire victims. In April 2026, a three-judge panel led by Judge Joyce reversed the lower court’s verdict, citing errors in jury instructions that, according to the panel, prejudiced PacifiCorp. The appellate court’s ruling has significant implications, potentially requiring all wildfire survivors in the class-action lawsuit to return to court to reestablish PacifiCorp’s liability. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/04/08/pacificorp-wildfire-oregon-litigation/9dc76424-33a0-11f1-b85b-2cd751275c1d_story.html?utm_source=openai))
Judge Joyce’s prior association with PacifiCorp has raised ethical concerns. Before her judicial appointment, she served as a private attorney representing the utility company. Legal experts argue that this history necessitated her recusal to maintain judicial impartiality. The Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges disqualify themselves in proceedings where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ([wweek.com](https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2026/05/04/appeals-judge-who-wrote-opinion-favorable-to-pacificorp-in-landmark-wildfire-case-formerly-represented-the-utility-giant/?utm_source=openai))
In response to the appellate court’s decision, attorneys for the wildfire survivors have petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the case. They argue that Judge Joyce’s involvement compromises the fairness of the proceedings and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. The petition emphasizes the need for an impartial review to ensure justice for the thousands affected by the wildfires. ([oregoncapitalchronicle.com](https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2026/05/15/wildfire-survivors-ask-oregon-supreme-court-to-take-on-pacificorp-case/?utm_source=openai))
PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has faced multiple lawsuits alleging negligence in failing to cut power during conditions that led to the 2020 wildfires. The company has already paid over $2 billion in settlements related to these fires. The appellate court’s recent ruling, if upheld, could significantly reduce PacifiCorp’s financial liabilities. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/04/08/pacificorp-wildfire-oregon-litigation/9dc76424-33a0-11f1-b85b-2cd751275c1d_story.html?utm_source=openai))
The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case will be pivotal. If the court declines, the appellate ruling will stand, potentially nullifying the previous damages awarded to wildfire victims. Conversely, if the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it could lead to a reinstatement of the original verdict or a new trial. ([oregoncapitalchronicle.com](https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2026/05/15/wildfire-survivors-ask-oregon-supreme-court-to-take-on-pacificorp-case/?utm_source=openai))
This development underscores the complexities of judicial ethics and the challenges in balancing legal procedures with the imperative of delivering justice to those affected by natural disasters.