SHEFFER v. CAROLINA FORGE COMPANY, LLC
401 P.3d 225
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- The Sheffers sued after a serious commercial-vehicle collision that killed one driver and injured the Sheffers; multiple defendants included Carolina Forge and its employees.
- The Sheffers changed counsel multiple times: initial counsel (Tawwater/Yohn), then The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C. (HLF) for ~4.5 years, then Garrett Law Center, PLLC (GLC) shortly before mediation.
- HLF pursued complex litigation including discovery, expert work, hearings, and two Oklahoma Supreme Court appeals that revived and preserved significant claims against Carolina Forge.
- After GLC took over it reviewed the file, prepared a demand, and mediated a $610,000 settlement; GLC agreed medical liens and expenses would be paid from the attorney-fee portion.
- After liens and expenses, $234,462.34 remained as contingency-fee proceeds; the trial court awarded $5,000 to Yohn, 25% to GLC, and 75% to HLF.
- GLC appealed, arguing the apportionment was legally erroneous and that the court failed to apply Burk factors and hold a proper evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burk fee-reasonableness factors control apportionment of a settled contingency fund among multiple counsel | GLC: Burk factors must be applied to determine proper split | HLF: Burk not applicable; dispute is allocation among multiple lawyers | Court: Burk inapplicable; allocation governed by equitable apportionment principles (Martin v. Buckman) |
| Proper factors for dividing contingency fee between discharged and successor counsel | GLC: Successor did mediation and settlement; deserves majority | HLF: Prior work, appeals, and preservation of claims produced value; deserves majority | Court: Use Martin factors—probable recovery had original counsel stayed, nature/extent of services by each; applied these and affirmed 75% to HLF, 25% to GLC |
| Whether HLF was terminated for cause (which would affect recovery) | GLC: Asserted mishandling that could justify cause | HLF: No cause; services were substantial and proper | Court: No evidence of termination for cause; court did not find cause; HLF still entitled to substantial portion |
| Adequacy of trial court hearing on fee allocation | GLC: Claimed hearing/evidence was deficient; requested evidentiary hearing | HLF: Hearing occurred; attorneys argued contributions | Court: Hearing was sufficient; each counsel presented; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Duffy v. Cope, 18 P.3d 366 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (attorney lien matters are equitable; appellate standard for equity rulings)
- Martin v. Buckman, 883 P.2d 185 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (factors for apportioning contingency fee between discharged and successor counsel)
- Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., LLC, 306 P.3d 544 (Okla. 2013) (preclusive/scope issues and preservation of employer/servant dispute on appeal)
- Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, 315 P.3d 359 (Okla. 2013) (tribal immunity and state-court jurisdiction developments relevant to prior appeals)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (framework for reasonableness of fees when no contract/statute sets amount)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Cedars Grp., L.L.C., 393 P.3d 1095 (Okla. 2017) (clarifying when Burk analysis applies)
- Oliver’s Sports Center, Inc. v. Nat’l Standard Ins. Co., 615 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1980) (examples of Burk analysis application)