eight factors in Oklahoma

2023Burk v. City of Oklahoma City , 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 "listed the same eight factors for determining the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded by the court." Baby Boy A , 2010 OK 39, ¶ 25 , 236 P.3d at 124 .

2023Burk v. City of Oklahoma City , 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 "listed the same eight factors for determining the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded by the court." Baby Boy A , 2010 OK 39, ¶ 25 , 236 P.3d at 124 .

2005Currently, Petitioner is employed as a courier for the Oklahoma Blood Institute in Lawton, Oklahoma. ¶ 7 We again will consider the eight factors articulated in Matter of Reinstatement of Gassaway, 2002 OK 48, ¶ 3 , 48 P.3d 805, 806 , and Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, ¶ 20 , 752 P.2d 1125, 1130 , to determine Petitioner’s fitness for reinstatement. ¶ 8 The first factor, Petitioner’s present moral fitness, is no longer a matter of concern.

2005Currently, Petitioner is employed as a courier for the Oklahoma Blood Institute in Lawton, Oklahoma. ¶ 7 We again will consider the eight factors articulated in Matter of Reinstatement of Gassaway, 2002 OK 48, ¶ 3 , 48 P.3d 805, 806 , and Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, ¶ 20 , 752 P.2d 1125, 1130 , to determine Petitioner’s fitness for reinstatement. ¶ 8 The first factor, Petitioner’s present moral fitness, is no longer a matter of concern.

2023Burk v. City of Oklahoma City , 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 "listed the same eight factors for determining the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded by the court." Baby Boy A , 2010 OK 39, ¶ 25 , 236 P.3d at 124 .

2023Burk v. City of Oklahoma City , 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 "listed the same eight factors for determining the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded by the court." Baby Boy A , 2010 OK 39, ¶ 25 , 236 P.3d at 124 .

2005Currently, Petitioner is employed as a courier for the Oklahoma Blood Institute in Lawton, Oklahoma. ¶ 7 We again will consider the eight factors articulated in Matter of Reinstatement of Gassaway, 2002 OK 48, ¶ 3 , 48 P.3d 805, 806 , and Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, ¶ 20 , 752 P.2d 1125, 1130 , to determine Petitioner’s fitness for reinstatement. ¶ 8 The first factor, Petitioner’s present moral fitness, is no longer a matter of concern.

2005Currently, Petitioner is employed as a courier for the Oklahoma Blood Institute in Lawton, Oklahoma. ¶ 7 We again will consider the eight factors articulated in Matter of Reinstatement of Gassaway, 2002 OK 48, ¶ 3 , 48 P.3d 805, 806 , and Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, ¶ 20 , 752 P.2d 1125, 1130 , to determine Petitioner’s fitness for reinstatement. ¶ 8 The first factor, Petitioner’s present moral fitness, is no longer a matter of concern.

2004Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22 , 681 P.2d 754 . ¶ 11 The eight factors listed in Rule 1.5(a), are analogous to the factors listed in State ex rel.

2004Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22 , 681 P.2d 754 . ¶ 11 The eight factors listed in Rule 1.5(a), are analogous to the factors listed in State ex rel.

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023We explained one result of the 1979 Burk decision: "Following the Burk decision, Oliver's Sports Center, Inc. , 1980 OK 120, at ¶ 8 , 615 P.2d at 295 , reiterated that an attorney seeking an attorney fee has the burden to present to the court detailed time records of the work performed and evidence of the reasonable value for the services performed for different types of legal work." Baby Boy A , 2010 OK 39, ¶ 35 , 236 P.3d at 126 . ¶53 In Baby Boy A , we cited ORPC, Rule 1.5, 5 O.S.2001, ch.1, app.3--A, and applied eight factors listed in Rule 1.5, which are as follows. (a) A lawyer shall not

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2023Bar Ass'n v. Jack , 2021 OK 1, n.1 , 481 P.3d 261, 264 ; 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, App. 6, Licensed Legal Internship Rules (as amended 2018). 135 Hearing Tr. vol. 8, 1960, 2005, April 11, 2022. 136 ORPC, Rule 1.4 supra note 93. 137 In re Application to Amend Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007 OK 22 , 171 P.3d 780, 791 (ORPC Rule 1.4, Comment 3). 138 See the eight factors listed in Rule 1.5 supra at ¶53. 139 Bowman v. Presley , 2009 OK 48, n.21 , 212 P.3d 1210, 1217 (defining caveat emptor as "let the buyer beware"). 140 Application of Mailath , 1988 OK 19, n.17 , 752 P.2d 803, 810 . 141 McQ

2016Id. ; See also , In re Reinstatement of Munson , 2010 OK 27, ¶ 12, 236 P.3d 96, 101. ¶10 In addition to the Rule 11.4 reinstatement requirements, this Court also considers the following eight factors: (1) the applicant's present moral fitness; (2) demonstrated consciousness of the conduct's wrongfulness and the disrepute it has brought upon the legal profession; (3) the extent of rehabilitation; (4) the original misconduct's seriousness; (5) conduct after resignation; (6) time elapsed since the resignation ; (7) the applicant's character, maturity, and experience when [he resigned]; and (8) pr

2016Id. ; See also , In re Reinstatement of Munson , 2010 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 236 P.3d 96, 101 . ¶10 In addition to the Rule 11.4 reinstatement requirements, this Court also considers the following eight factors: (1) the applicant's present moral fitness; (2) demonstrated consciousness of the conduct's wrongfulness and the disrepute it has brought upon the legal profession; (3) the extent of rehabilitation; (4) the original misconduct's seriousness; (5) conduct after resignation; (6) time elapsed since the resignation ; (7) the applicant's character, maturity, and experience when [he resigned]; and (8)

1994Oklahoma Bar Assoc, v. Kamins, 568 P.2d 627 (Okla.1977), it was pointed out by a member of the tribunal that had Respondent applied for reinstatement nine months and one day after the suspension, Respondent would not had to have gone through any hearing.