- 20 -
in issue and had no ownership rights sufficient to effect a gift
or support a charitable contribution deduction under section 170.
See Pettit v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 639.
Although not dispositive, it is also relevant that Oklahoma
law recognizes a common law possessory or retaining lien with
respect to an attorney’s retention of his client’s papers, money,
or other property that are in the attorney’s possession until
fees for services rendered are paid by the client. Britton &
Gray, P.C. v. Shelton, 69 P.3d 1210, 1212 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003)
(citing State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Cummings, 863 P.2d
1164, 1168-1170 (Okla. 1993)). The existence of such a retaining
lien supports our conclusion that Oklahoma law generally
considers property that is held by an attorney in the scope of
representing his client as properly belonging to the client,
against whose possessory interest the retaining lien may attach.
Petitioners argue further that, because it is undisputed
that attorneys are entitled to retain copies of their clients’
case files even after surrendering them to their clients and
because the materials are copies, not originals, the copies
belong legally to petitioner, and thus he may claim an ownership
interest in them. We are not persuaded by petitioners’ implicit
argument that an attorney’s right to maintain a copy of his
client’s file after termination of representation includes a
right to publicize, sell, or otherwise dispose of the case file
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008