Opinion

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Weeks

  • 69 O.B.A.J. 2647
  • 969 P.2d 347
  • 1998 OK 83
  • 1998 Okla. LEXIS 86
  • 1998 WL 400121
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Jul 14, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Simms
On the bench
Kauger, Summers, Lavender, Hargrave, Simms, Hodges, Opala, Wilson, Watt
Cited by
25 cases

observing that “[t]hose federal courts which have considered the issue of an attorney’s recovery of both the court awarded statutory fee and the entirety of the contingent fee amount, have disallowed the arrangement as inappropriate and a windfall to the attorney”

How later courts described this case

  • observing that “[t]hose federal courts which have considered the issue of an attorney’s recovery of both the court awarded statutory fee and the entirety of the contingent fee amount, have disallowed the arrangement as inappropriate and a windfall to the attorney”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SIMMS, Justice,

concurring specially:

¶ 1 I concur with the majority, however, I would find respondent Nation is also subject to discipline and publicly censure him for his participation in this fee arrangement. Additionally, I would order both respondents to make restitution to Mr. Dodoo of the $20,000 contingent attorney’s fee. Even though restitution may undoubtedly be obtained in the district court, I would resolve the issue in this discipline matter. Respondents obtained a windfall recovery which they were not entitled to receive and I would order them to return it to their client as restitution.

WATT, Justice, dissenting:

I would suspend each respondent for some period of time.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.