SHEFFER v. CAROLINA FORGE COMPANY, LLC
2017 OK CIV APP 39
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- The Sheffers sued after a vehicle collision that killed a third party and caused serious injuries; defendants included Carolina Forge and its employees.
- The Sheffers were represented sequentially by The Tawwater Law Firm / Rick Yohn, then The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C. (HLF) for ~4.5 years, and finally by Garrett Law Center, PLLC (GLC), which negotiated settlement.
- HLF conducted extensive litigation, discovery, expert work, and won two Oklahoma Supreme Court appeals that preserved claims against Carolina Forge and addressed tribal immunity issues.
- GLC entered after HLF was discharged, reviewed the file, initiated mediation, and achieved a $610,000 settlement; fee contract called for 40% contingent fee, with medical liens paid from fees.
- After liens and expenses, $234,462.34 remained in the contingency fee fund; the trial court awarded $5,000 to Yohn, 25% to GLC, and 75% to HLF.
- GLC appealed, arguing the apportionment was contrary to law and the court failed to apply Burk factors or hold an adequate evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to apportion a disputed contingency fee fund among multiple attorneys | HLF: trial court may allocate based on each lawyer’s proportional contribution and the equities of the case | GLC: court should have applied Burk factors (reasonableness factors) and favored the successor who obtained settlement | Court: Burk analysis inapposite; allocation governed by principles in Martin v. Buckman — allocate based on proportional contribution (services rendered and realistic recovery if original counsel stayed) |
| Whether HLF’s prior appellate work merited large share of fee | HLF: extensive pre-settlement work and successful appeals materially preserved/created the recovery | GLC: those efforts were overbroad or baseless and should not dominate allocation | Court: HLF’s appeals were substantial and directly preserved Carolina Forge as a defendant and the potential recovery; properly considered by trial court |
| Whether the trial court erred by holding insufficient hearing before apportioning fees | HLF: hearing was sufficient | GLC: hearing inadequate; needed full evidentiary hearing | Court: adequate attorney-fees hearing occurred; each counsel presented and court relied on record and familiarity with case |
| Whether HLF was terminated for cause and thus precluded from meaningful recovery | GLC: argued misconduct/poor handling justified limiting HLF’s share | HLF: termination not for cause; even if for cause, still entitled to share for services rendered | Court: record showed no termination for cause; even if there had been, authority allows recovery for services performed; trial court’s factual findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Buckman, 883 P.2d 185 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (framework for apportioning contingent fee fund among discharged and successor counsel; look to proportional contribution)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (factors to evaluate reasonableness of attorney fees when no contract or statute fixes amount)
- Duffy v. Cope, 18 P.3d 366 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (enforcement of attorney liens is equitable; appellate review standard for equitable judgments)
- Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., LLC, 306 P.3d 544 (Okla. 2013) (Supreme Court decision reversing summary judgment on course-and-scope and negligent entrustment issues)
- Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, 315 P.3d 359 (Okla. 2013) (Supreme Court decision addressing tribal immunity and jurisdictional issues)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Cedars Grp., L.L.C., 393 P.3d 1095 (Okla. 2017) (clarifies that Burk applies to reasonableness of fee awards when fee not fixed by contract)