settlement - Effect on lien - Certain contracts void. It shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client's cause of action or claim not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of such judgment as may be recovered, or such compromise as may be made, whether the same arises ex contractu or ex delicto, and no compromise or settlement entered into by a client without such attorney's consent shall affect or abrogate the lien provided for in this chapter. Provided that all such contracts in personal injury or wrongful death cases including, but not restricted to, cases in which jurisdiction is in the Industrial Commission, shall be void and unenforceable (1) if secured as a result of the intervention of any laymen, association, or corporation for compensation, or promise of compensation, or anticipation of gift, compensation or hope of reward, or (2) where any laymen, association or corporation has a direct or indirect interest in, or growing out of, any judgment arising out of such claim recovery or compensation from, or settlement of any such claim.
R.L.1910, § 248; Laws 1953, p. 15, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Morgan v. Galilean Health Enter., Inc., 1998 OK 130 (Okla. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1991 § 7, which provide in pertinent part: "It shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client's cause of action or claim not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of such judgment as may be recovered, or such…”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Watson, 897 P.2d 246 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Complainant argues and the PRT agrees that Respondent’s fee should have been net-based and not gross-based pursuant to 5 O.S.1981, § 7 which states: It shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client’s cause of action or claim…”
Strack v. Cont'l Resources, 2021 OK 21 (Okla. 2021).
“5 O.S.2011, § 7. For many Oklahomans and in many areas of the law, contingent fee agreements may be the only means possible to secure legal services.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Fagin, 848 P.2d 11 (Okla. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Title 5 O.S.1981, § 7 provides: “It shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client’s cause of action or claim not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of such judgment as may be recovered, or such compromise as may…”
Martin v. Buckman, 883 P.2d 185 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
“McDaniel, creating a total fee fund of $60,000, thus assuring that he would receive $10,000 regardless of what might be awarded to attorney Buckman. Of course, the court did not award the latter the full amount of his contract, and attorney Buckman does not complain of the…”
Capron & Edwards P.C. v. Holden & Carr, P.C., 331 F. App'x 563 (10th Cir. 2009).
“” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 7 . The district court interpreted the Fee Agreement to entitle Holden & Carr to recover the majority of money the plaintiff can be required to pay.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hatcher, 452 P.2d 150 (Okla. 1969).
“00 out of this litigation. This settlement remained final until after respondent’s conduct was brought to the attention of the Oklahoma Bar Association.”
Florida Bar re Amendment to the Code of Prof'l Responsibility, 494 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1986).
“Code § 6146(a)(4) (Deering 1986)) and Oklahoma (50% of net amount of judgment, Okla. Stat. tit. 5, § 7 (1981)). . The changes are: removal of the fee limitation prior to filing suit; clarification of the post-judgment fee limit; clarification regarding multiple defendants; and…”
Town of Mannford v. Watson, 394 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1964).
“It appears from the record and briefs of the plaintiffs herein that plaintiffs’ cause was presented to the trial court and jury upon at least two theories for recovery. However, from our consideration of the whole problem we are of the view that a contingent fee contract is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.