- 12 -
because the materials contained only copies of documents and
other evidence, petitioner rightfully owned them. We infer that
petitioners’ argument is essentially that an attorney’s right to
copy and keep client files for himself is equivalent to
traditional rights of ownership, including the right freely to
dispose of property.
Central to our analysis of ownership is the principle that
the attorney-client relationship is fundamentally one of agency.
See Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426, 436-437 (2005); State ex
rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1242, 1253 (Okla.
2000); Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador & Associates v. Medler, 663
P.2d 388, 390 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983). Generally, an agency
relationship is one in which the parties agree that one party is
to act on behalf of another. Garrison v. Bechtel Corp., 889 P.2d
273, 283 (Okla. 1995). Because an attorney is the agent of his
client, the delivery of the materials to petitioner occurred
within the scope of the agency relationship. The materials were
delivered to petitioner from the Government in the course of his
preparation for the defense of McVeigh. The materials were for
McVeigh’s benefit and were delivered to allow him and his
attorney better to prepare his case for trial. Indisputably, the
materials were delivered to petitioner within the scope of his
representation of McVeigh’s criminal prosecution for the Oklahoma
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008