Case ID: p2d_859/html/1098-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HODGES, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRASIER & FRASIER, Petitioner, v. The OKLAHOMA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT, Respondent.
    No. 81951.
    Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
    Sept. 16, 1993.
   ORDER

HODGES, Chief Justice.

Original jurisdiction is assumed and a writ of prohibition is issued to prohibit the Workers’ Compensation Court from proceeding further in a dispute over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Title 85 O.S. Ch. 4, App., Rule 34. Rule 34 limits the Workers’ Compensation Court to deciding two disputes regarding attorney fees: (1) identity of counsel of record and (2) the allocation of fees among successive counsel. The issue here involves a law firm’s dispute over allocation of fees under a complex financial agreement between associated attorneys concerning a share of net profits in a multi-member law firm. The Workers’ Compensation Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the rights, relationships, and money due under such contractual arrangements now in litigation in a district court action. Subject to further modification by order of the District Court, petitioner law firm shall deposit all fees awarded by the respondent-court in a trust account whose distribution shall await the end or settlement of the dispute between affected counsel.

All Justices concur.