Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number

FRASIER FRASIER, PETITIONER, v. THE OKLAHOMA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, RESPONDENT.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FRASIER FRASIER v. OKL. WKRS' COMPENSATION CT
(Sep 16, 1993)