State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Flaniken

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma dismissed on the merits an attorney-discipline complaint alleging that Robert S. Flaniken charged an unreasonable contingency fee in a probate matter. The court held that the Oklahoma Bar Association failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the fee violated Rule 1.5(a), rejecting a hindsight-based reasonableness test for a lawfully formed contingency-fee agreement. Separate opinions addressed the application of contingency fees to routine probate services and potential will contests.

Holdings

1. The Oklahoma Bar Association failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent charged an unreasonable fee under Rule 1.5(a), so the disciplinary complaint was dismissed.
2. The Court rejected the Bar Association's proposed hindsight test for determining whether a lawyer's lawfully contracted percentage fee was unreasonable merely because the anticipated will contest did not occur.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent charged an unreasonable fee in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the reasonableness of a lawfully formed contingency-fee agreement should be evaluated retrospectively in hindsight based on the fact that the anticipated will contest did not occur.

Disposition

dismissed