Court Opinion

ID: 9542981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:40:53.766087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:24.059967
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
concurring in result:
Contingent fees per se are neither illegal nor violative of public policy.1 Often contingent fees are the only way a litigant may receive legal services.2 However, these contracts are subject to exceptions, and contingent fees in divorce actions have traditionally been held to be illegal and void because they contravene public policy. The two reasons advanced in Opperud v. Bussey, 172 Okl. 625, 46 P.2d 319, 322, 324 (1935) for declaring contingent fee contracts in divorce cases invalid were that: 1) There was no necessity for such contracts because the court was authorized by law to require the husband to pay suit money, thus enabling the wife to prosecute her action. The court, in its discretion, could require the husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife not only to support herself, but also to prosecute or defend the action, thereby negating the necessity for a contingent fee. 2) Public policy encourages reconciliation between the parties. A contingent fee arrangement, based on the amount recovered in a divorce case, would give the attorney a personal interest in the litigation thus serving as an impediment to reconciliation.
The first reason has, depending on the circumstances of the case, been abrogated by statute. The Oklahoma Code of Civil Procedure, 12 O.S.1981 § 1276 provides that “... the court may require the husband or wife to pay such reasonable expenses of the other in the prosecution or defense of the action as may be just and proper considering the respective parties and the means and property of each ...” See also Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 720 P.2d 721, 727 (Okla.1986) and Gardner v. *528Gardner, 629 P.2d 1283, 1285-86 (Okla.App.1981). The second reason, the encouragement of reconciliation, is still required both by law and by public policy.

. State ex rel. Howard v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n., 614 P.2d 45, 49 (Okla.1980); 5 O.S. 1981 § 7.

. Sneed v. Sneed, 681 P.2d 754, 756 (Okla.1984).