Court Opinion

ID: 9608411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:12:14.017042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:46.134925
License: Public Domain

*17KAUGER, Justice,
concurring in result.
Unquestionably, contingent fees in a divorce proceeding are against public policy. Nevertheless, the respondent offered materials from live Continuing Legal Education programs sponsored by the Oklahoma Bar Association1 which contained the “results accomplished” provision. It is troubling that although the rule is clear to the Court, at seminars conducted by the official arm of the Court,2 lawyers have been advised to engage in a billing practice which is contrary to the plain intent of the rule. Both the teachers of OBA-CLE courses and other practitioners testified at the respondent’s hearing that they used the same “results accomplished” provision in contracts with their divorce clients, and that it did not violate Rule 1.5
Should we on the one hand suspend lawyers from the practice of law for failure to attend mandatory CLE,3 and on the other hand, single out one attorney for discipline after he practices what sanctioned seminars have taught him? 4 Rather than do so, I would treat this matter as an application by the OBA for examination of Rule 1.5. In analyzing the rule, I concur with the majority that the rule has been misinterpreted by the respondent.

. Title 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 1-B, Rule 7, Regulation 4, 4.2 provides in pertinent part:
“4.2 Continuing legal education programs sponsored by the following organizations are presumptively approved for credit, ... Oklahoma Bar Association ..."

. Title 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 1 art. 1, § 1 provides:
“The Oklahoma Bar Association is an official arm of this Court, when acting for and on behalf of this Court in the performance of its governmental powers and functions."

. Title 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 1-B, Rule 3 provides:
"Each attorney subject to these rules pursuant to Rule 2 herein shall attend, or complete an approved substitute for attendance, a minimum of twelve (12) hours of approved continuing legal education each year beginning January 1, 1986.”

. The Respondents asserts that “The courts, legal treatises, articles, and practitioners are unanimous in their opinion that a results obtained adjustment to a final hourly-based domestic fee is not a prohibited contingent fee,”