Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerburden of proofprobatewill
attorneylawyertrialprobatewillrespondent

Related Cases

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Brothers, 149 Wash.2d 575, 70 P.3d 940
View Case »
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Brothers, 149 Wash.2d 575, 70 P.3d 940
View Case »
Hunter v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Third Dist. Committee, 285 Va. 485, 744 S.E.2d 611
View Case »
Guerrant v. Roth, 334 Ill.App.3d 259, 777 N.E.2d 499, 267 Ill.Dec. 696
View Case »
Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, 529 Pa. 241, 602 A.2d 1277, 60 USLW 2497
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Flaniken, 85 P.3d 824, 2004 OK 6

Facts

Robert S. Flaniken represented Peggy Hepler in the probate of the estate of Dewey Lawrence Hughes, for whom Hepler was the personal representative and sole beneficiary. Hepler initially rejected Flaniken's proposal for an hourly fee and instead entered into a contingency fee agreement, believing a will contest was likely. After the probate proceedings concluded without a contest, Hepler paid Flaniken a fee of $108,199.85, which was one-third of the estate's value. The Oklahoma Bar Association later alleged that this fee was unreasonable.

The attorney who drafted Hughes' will was convinced through his observations that Hughes was competent. Hepler met with the Respondent concerning legal representation in the probate. Hepler rejected Respondent's proposal of an hourly rate fee with a retainer.

Issue

Did attorney Robert S. Flaniken charge an unreasonable fee in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct?

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, Robert S. Flaniken charged an unreasonable fee to a client, Peggy Hepler.

Rule

Rule 1.5(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer's fee shall be reasonable, and it provides factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of a fee, including the time and labor required, the fee customarily charged, and the results obtained.

“(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: …”

Analysis

The court found that the Oklahoma Bar Association did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Flaniken's fee was unreasonable. The evidence indicated that Hepler had a choice between an hourly fee and a contingency fee, and there was no evidence of impropriety in the execution of the fee agreement. The court rejected the Bar's argument that the fee should be judged in hindsight based on the absence of a will contest, stating that the contingency fee agreement was valid at the time it was made.

In considering the facts before this Court in this bar matter, we hold that the Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has charged an unreasonable fee pursuant to Rule 1.5(a).

Conclusion

The court dismissed the complaint against Flaniken, concluding that the Bar Association failed to prove that he charged an unreasonable fee.

COMPLAINT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS.

Who won?

Robert S. Flaniken prevailed in the case because the court found that the Oklahoma Bar Association did not meet its burden of proof regarding the alleged unreasonable fee.

The trial panel concluded that the Respondent's conduct did not merit discipline, and made such a recommendation to this Court.

You must be