Portland Attorney Amanda Alvarez Thibeault

Amanda Alvarez Thibeault

Amanda Alvarez Thibeault

Amanda Alvarez Thibeault represents individuals at all stages on a wide variety of criminal matters in state and federal court.

Prior to joining Angeli Law Group, Amanda spent the last decade as a trial level defense attorney, first at Metropolitan Public Defender in Portland, Oregon, and then eventually running her own practice for several years. Amanda has extensive trial experience on cases ranging from misdemeanor charges of DUII all the way to murder allegations. Beyond her litigation practice, Amanda has assisted several clients at the pre-indictment stage, resulting in the district attorney’s office choosing not to bring charges against her clients on multiple occasions. In addition to her state court practice, Amanda also appears in federal court, where she has argued several motions in the District of Oregon including trying a complex drug trafficking case to jury.

Amanda has tried nearly 50 cases, including over 30 jury trials. In addition to her trial successes, Amanda was regularly sought out by other attorneys for motion assistance and trial strategy consultation. Her creative efforts have resulted in multiple favorable opinions from a variety of trial court judges and appellate opinions from the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Representative Work

  • State v. Zamora-Skaar, 308 Or. App. 337 (2020)—Amanda was the trial attorney for Mr. Zamora-Skaar and initiated contempt proceedings against the State of Oregon when it refused to timely transport her client to the state hospital. The trial court judge found Oregon in Contempt and that finding was upheld on appeal.
  • State v. Matthew Fudge, 320 Or. App. 614 (2022)—Amanda was the attorney assigned to argue at Mr. Fudge’s sentencing proceeding at the trial court level. The trial judge disagreed with her argument and sentenced her client to a lengthy prison sentence. That sentence was reversed on appeal, with the Court of Appeals agreeing with Amanda’s arguments that the trial court’s sentence was unconstitutional.
  • State v. Donald Vanderzanden, 265 Or. App. 752 (2014)In only her second trial, Amanda argued for special jury instructions related to the defense of necessity in a Driving While Suspended case. The trial denied her request for special instructions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with Amanda and her requested instructions, and reversed the client’s conviction.


  • Lewis and Clark Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 2013
    • Articles Editor, The Lewis and Clark Law Review
    • Public Interest Law Project: Board Member and Auction Director
    • 1L Student Bar Association Representative
  • University of North Carolina at Asheville, B.A., magna cum laude, 2009
    • “The Effects of Expectation on Physiological Correlates of Reward Responses to Musical Stimuli," Journal of Undergraduate Research (U.N.C. Dec. 2009)

Bar and Court Admissions

  • Oregon
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Community Involvement

  • California Innocence Project, Case Screener, 2016-2017