Sherrel and Leslie Stephen Jones - Page 18




                                        - 18 -                                        

          Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, R 1.16(d).  The Comment           
          to rule 1.16 explains the last clause of the quoted rule above by           
          noting that the attorney may retain papers as a security for a              
          fee only to the extent permitted by law.                                    
               The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct cited above                 
          illustrate the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client                      
          relationship.  They emphasize the attorney’s duty to keep details           
          of his representation of a client confidential, even after the              
          representation has been terminated, and they suggest that, while            
          an attorney may retain documents related to his representation of           
          the client in certain situations, those documents rightfully                
          belong to the client and should not be disposed of or exposed in            
          a way that may be detrimental to the client.  Although McVeigh              
          cannot and his successors likely will not attempt to have the               
          Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct enforced against                     
          petitioner, the rules do suggest that petitioner is not the                 
          exclusive owner of the materials, regardless of his rightful                
          possession of the materials themselves or of additional copies of           
          those materials, and that petitioner was not entitled to dispose            
          of, publicize, or capitalize on them for his personal gain.                 
               Petitioners rely primarily on Corrigan v. Armstrong,                   
          Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus, 824 S.W.2d at 98, to support             
          their assertion of petitioner’s exclusive legal ownership of the            
          materials in issue in this case.  However, the court in Corrigan            






Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008