http://www.okbar.org/obj/pdf/2010/OBJ2010May8

Volume 81 u No. 13 u May 8, 2010

1122

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

OFFICERS & BOARD OF GOVERNORS Allen M. Smallwood, President, Tulsa Deborah Reheard, President-Elect, Eufaula Mack K. Martin, Vice President, Oklahoma City Jon K. Parsley, Immediate Past President, Guymon Jack L. Brown, Tulsa Martha Rupp Carter, Tulsa Charles W. Chesnut, Miami Glenn A. Devoll, Enid Steven Dobbs, Oklahoma City W. Mark Hixson, Yukon Jerry L. McCombs, Idabel Lou Ann Moudy, Henryetta David A. Poarch, Norman Ryland L. Rivas, Chickasha Susan S. Shields, Oklahoma City James T. Stuart, Shawnee Molly Aspan, Tulsa, Chairperson, OBA/Young Lawyers Division

events Calendar MAY 2010 10

11

12

BAR Center Staff

John Morris Williams, Executive Director; Gina L. Hendryx, General Counsel; Donita Bourns Douglas, Director of Educational Programs; Carol A. Manning, Director of Communications; Craig D. Combs, Director of Administration; Travis Pickens, Ethics Counsel; Jim Calloway, Director of Management Assistance Program; Beverly Petry Lewis, Administrator MCLE Commission; Jane McConnell, Coordinator Law-related Education; John Burchell, Information Services Manager; Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Debbie Maddox, Ted Rossier, Assistant General Counsels; Katherine Ogden, Staff Attorney, Tommy Butler, Sharon Orth, Dorothy Walos and Krystal Willis, Investigators Nina Anderson, Manni Arzola, Debbie Brink, Melissa Brown, Brenda Card, Morgan Estes, Johnny Marie Floyd, Matt Gayle, Susan Hall, Brandon Haynie, Suzi Hendrix, Misty Hill, Debra Jenkins, Jeff Kelton, Durrel Lattimore, Debora Lowry, Heidi McComb, Renee Montgomery, Wanda Reece-Murray, Tracy Sanders, Mark Schneidewent, Robbin Watson, Laura Willis & Roberta Yarbrough

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in Chief, John Morris Williams, News & Layout Editor, Carol A. Manning, Editor, Melissa DeLacerda, Stillwater, Associate Editors: P. Scott Buhlinger, Bartlesville; Dietmar K. Caudle, Lawton; Sandee Coogan, Norman; Emily Duensing, Tulsa; Thomas E. Kennedy, Enid; Pandee Ramirez, Okmulgee; James T. Stuart, Shawnee; Leslie D. Taylor, Oklahoma City; January Windrix, Poteau NOTICE of change of address (which must be in writing and signed by the OBA member), undeliverable copies, orders for subscriptions or ads, news stories, articles and all mail items should be sent to the Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036.

Oklahoma Bar Association (405) 416-7000 Toll Free (800) 522-8065 FAX (405) 416-7001 Continuing Legal Education (405) 416-7006 Ethics Counsel (405) 416-7055 General Counsel (405) 416-7007 Law-related Education (405) 416-7005 Lawyers Helping Lawyers (800) 364-7886 Mgmt. Assistance Program (405) 416-7008 Mandatory CLE (405) 416-7009 OBJ & Communications (405) 416-7004 Board of Bar Examiners (405) 416-7075 Oklahoma Bar Foundation (405) 416-7070

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

13

14

15 18

19

OBA Uniform Laws Committee Meeting; 3 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Fred Miller (405) 325-4699 Death Oral Argument; Nicholas Alexander Davis; D-2007-891;10 a.m.; Court of Criminal Appeals Courtroom OBA Law-related Education Committee Meeting; 4 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Jack G. Clark (405) 232-4271 OBA Work/Life Balance Committee Meeting; 12 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Julie Rivers (405) 232-6357 OBA Government and Administrative Law Practice Section Meeting; 3:30 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City; Contact: Jami Fenner (405) 844-9900 OBA Bench & Bar Committee Meeting; 12 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Jack Brown (918) 581-8211 OBA Strategic Planning Committee Meeting; 2 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Deb Reheard (918) 689-9281 OBA Lawyers Helping Lawyers Assistance Program Committee Meeting; 12 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and OSU Tulsa; Contact: Tom Riesen (405) 843-8444 Oklahoma Trial Judges Association Meeting; 12 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City; Contact: A.J. Henshaw (918) 775-4613 OBA Family Law Section Meeting; 3:30 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and OSU Tulsa; Contact: Kimberly K. Hays (918) 592-2800 OBA Title Examination Standards Committee Meeting; Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Kraettli Epperson (405) 848-9100 OBA Civil Procedure Committee Meeting; 3:30 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and OSU Tulsa; Contact: James Milton (918) 591-5229 Oklahoma Council of Administrative Hearing Officials; 12 p.m.; Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City and Tulsa County Bar Center, Tulsa; Contact: Carolyn Guthrie (405) 271-1269 Ext. 56212

For more events go to www.okbar.org/news/calendar.htm The Oklahoma Bar Association’s official Web site:

www.okbar.org

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL is a publication of the Oklahoma Bar Association. All rights reserved. Copyright© 2010 2008 Oklahoma Bar Association.

The design of the scales and the “Oklahoma Bar Association” encircling the scales are trademarks of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Legal articles carried in THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL are selected by the Board of Editors.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal (ISSN 0030-1655) is published three times a month in january, February, March, April, May, August, September, October, November and December and bimonthly in June and July. by the Oklahoma Bar Association, 1901 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105. Periodicals postage paid at Oklahoma City, OK. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036. Subscriptions are $55 per year except for law students registered with the Oklahoma Bar Association, who may subscribe for $25. Active member subscriptions are included as a portion of annual dues. Any opinion expressed herein is that of the author and not necessarily that of the Oklahoma Bar Association, or the Oklahoma Bar Journal Board of Editors.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1123

www...

ptions

your association’s sites Oklahoma BarWeb Circle at www.okbar.org Look on the right side of the page next to the Fastcase login. Enter your ID and PIN #. Don’t know it? That’s okay, just click on the Forgot your PIN? link and one will be provided to you shortly. One shorthand way of thinking of Oklahoma Bar Circle is that it is like Facebook for Oklahoma lawyers, but access is allowed only to other Oklahoma lawyers. Think of Oklahoma Bar Circle as an online pictorial directory. This social networking tool can be used to mentor, market yourself, network with other attorneys or find old classmates from law school and reconnect.

www.oklahomafindalawyer.com

People from across Oklahoma visit this Web site every day in search of an attorney. How can you get your name on this list for free?

Signing up is easy – log into your account at my.okbar.org and click on the “find a lawyer” link.

www.okbar.org/oknewsbar.htm Designed with the needs of OBA members in mind, OKNewsBar has been created to allow you to quickly access new Oklahoma and U.S. Supreme Court opinions as well as up-to-date legal news and law practice management tips.

my.okbar.org On this site, you can do everything from changing your official address, enrolling in a CLE course, checking your MCLE credits and listing your practice areas on the Internet so potential clients can find you. The PIN number required is printed on your dues statement and can be e-mailed to you if the OBA has your current e-mail address.

www.okbar.org The official Web site of the Oklahoma Bar Association. It’s your one-click resource to all the information you need, including what’s new at the OBA, ethics opinions, upcoming CLE seminars, staff contacts, and section and committee information.

www.oba-net.org

Members-only interactive service. Free basic service with premium services available to enhance the member benefit. Lawyers are empowered to help each other through online discussions and an online document repository. You must agree to certain terms and be issued a password to participate in OBA-NET.

Fastcase at www.okbar.org The OBA teamed up with Fastcase in 2007 to provide online legal research software as a free benefit to all OBA members. Fastcase services include national coverage, unlimited usage, unlimited customer service and unlimited free printing — at no cost to bar members, as a part of their existing bar membership. To use Fastcase, go to www.okbar.org. Under the Fastcase logo, enter your username (OBA number) and password PIN for the myokbar portion of the OBA Web site.

www.twitter.com/oklahomabar www.twitter.com/obacle Catch the most up-to-date happenings at and around the OBA including bar events and CLE’s. You don’t even have to register. You can simply read all of our tweets by going to twitter.com/oklahomabar or twitter.com/obacle.

For all other member benefits and resources: Visit www.okbar.org/members/benefits.htm

1124

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Oklahoma Bar Association

table of

contents May 8, 2010 • Vol. 81

• No. 13

page 1123 Events Calendar 1126 Index to Court Opinions 1127 Supreme Court Opinions 1145 2010 Sovereignty Symposium Agenda 1153 New Attorneys Take Oath 1157 Disposition of Cases Other Than by Publication

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1125

Index To Opinions Of Supreme Court 2010 OK 13 Order for the Administrative Reinstatement of Certified and Licensed Shorthand Reporters for Failure to Report Continuing Education for Calendar Year 2009.

S.C.A.D. No. 2010-10......................................................................................................................... 1127 2009 OK 40 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. AL “YOGI” KELLY COLE; BANK OF AMERICA; and THE CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/Respondents. No. 106,299. May 3, 2010 and STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. PAULA SISSOM and GRANVILLE ALVIN SISSOM, wife and husband; FRANK BOX and BUELLAH BOX, husband and wife; and the CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/Respondents. No. 106,471. May 3, 2010 and STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/ Petitioner, v. GRANVILLE ALVIN SISSOM and PAULA SISSOM, husband and wife; FRANK BOX and BUELLAH BOX, husband and wife; and the CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/Respondents. No. 106,474.......................................................... 1127 2010 OK 39 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF BABY BOY A, A MINOR CHILD No. 106,074.......................................................................................................................................... 1127

1126

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Supreme Court Opinions Manner and Form of Opinions in the Appellate Courts; See Rule 1.200, Rules — Okla. Sup. Ct. R., 12 O.S. Supp. 1996 (1997 T. 12 Special Supplement)

2010 OK 13 Order for the Administrative Reinstatement of Certified and Licensed Shorthand Reporters for Failure to Report Continuing Education for Calendar Year 2009.

S.C.A.D. No. 2010-10. April 21, 2010 ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT The State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has requested the reinstatment of the following person as having now completed all requirements for reporting annual Continuing Education for Calendar Year 2009.

The Court orders that the following person is hereby reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by S.C.A.D. No. 2010-10.

REPORTER

REINSTATEMENT EFFECTIVE

Krista Wagner April 15, 2010 Done on this 21st day of April, 2010. /s/ James E. Edmondson Chief Justice 2009 OK 40 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. AL “YOGI” KELLY COLE; BANK OF AMERICA; and THE CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 106,299. May 3, 2010 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. PAULA SISSOM and GRANVILLE ALVIN SISSOM, wife and husband; FRANK BOX and BUELLAH BOX, husband and wife; and the CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/ Respondents. and

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

No. 106,474. May 3, 2010 ORDER ¶1 The petition of Plaintiff/Appellant (State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation) for rehearing is denied. ¶2 The applications of Defendants/Appellees (Landowners) for appeal related attorney’s fee is granted upon the condition that they are ultimately entitled to recover attorney’s fee as provided in 66 O.S.2001 § 55(D), following the trial of this case. GRP of Texas Inc. v. Eateries, Inc., 2001 OK 53, ¶ 8, 27 P.3d 95, 98. In the event Landowners are entitled to recover attorney’s fee as provided in 66 O.S.2001 § 55(D), the trial court shall determine the appropriate amount of attorney’s fee incurred by Landowners in this certiorari proceeding.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 3rd day of May, 2010. /s/ James E. Edmondson CHIEF JUSTICE ¶3 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. 2010 OK 39

and

No. 106,471. May 3, 2010

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. GRANVILLE ALVIN SISSOM and PAULA SISSOM, husband and wife; FRANK BOX and BUELLAH BOX, husband and wife; and the CHEROKEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants/ Respondents.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF BABY BOY A, A MINOR CHILD No. 106,074. May 4, 2010 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I ¶0 In this private adoption proceeding, the presiding judge of the Oklahoma County District Court, the Honorable Larry A. Jones, appointed the Oklahoma County Public Defender to represent the minor child and to assist the court in determining the reasonableness of the fees, costs, and expenses paid by the prospective adoptive

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1127

parents in connection with the adoption.

The public defender asked the district court to find the attorney fees were excessive and the private investigation expenses were not authorized. The district court found that the prospective adoptive parents had contracts with the attorneys and the private investigator; that in the absence of objection by the people paying the expenses, the contracts are reasonable; and that the public defender had the burden to produce evidence showing the adoptionrelated expenditures to be unreasonable.

The district court approved the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We previously granted certiorari review.

OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT ORDERS APPROVING PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS’ EXPENDITURES REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Christopher W. Venters and Collin Robert Walke, Assistant Oklahoma County Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellant.

M. Eileen Echols and Amy L. Howe, Echols and Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellees.

TAYLOR, V.C.J. ¶1 In this appeal, the appellant is the Oklahoma County Public Defender in his capacity as the attorney for the minor child and the appellees are the adoptive parents. The dispositive question is whether the district court abused its discretion in approving the adoptive parents’ expenditures for fees, costs, and expenses in connection with the adoption. We answer in the affirmative and remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. The Proceedings ¶2 In this private adoption, the adoptive parents paid a total of $147,289.42 for fees, costs, and expenses. A review of the adoption proceedings is a necessary step in our consideration of the trial court’s approval of these expenditures.

1128

¶3 In September of 2005, the unwed prospective birth mother made arrangements with a private attorney for the adoption of her unborn child. By the end of September of 2005, the prospective adoptive parents began paying the prospective birth mother’s living expenses pursuant to an order of the district court. The birth mother delivered Baby Boy A on April 11, 2006. ¶4 On April 17, 2006, the birth mother, her attorney, Paige Lee, Ponca City, Oklahoma, and one of the attorneys who arranged the private adoption for the prospective adoptive parents,1 Tina Peot, appeared before the district court.

The birth mother executed her permanent relinquishment of parental rights and her consent to the adoption of Baby Boy A and gave testimony regarding her relinquishment and consent. The birth mother also gave testimony regarding the putative father. She testified that the putative father knew she was pregnant and should have known of the birth of Baby Boy A, the putative father had not acknowledged paternity of Baby Boy A, he did not provide any medical or financial support for her during the pregnancy, he did not provide any medical or other financial support for Baby Boy A, she did not refuse any support from the putative father, and the putative father had not exercised any parental right. The district court questioned the birth mother and executed the certification/verification as required by the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S.2001, §§ 7503-2.3 and 7503-2.4. ¶5 On April 25, 2006, the prospective adoptive parents filed a petition for adoption in the district court in Oklahoma County, together with an application to terminate the parental rights of the putative father, a voluntary placement statement, an interstate disclosure statement, and other routine filings. Upon the birth mother’s consent, the prospective adoptive parents obtained physical custody of Baby Boy A but did not remove him from the state of Oklahoma until they obtained the requisite permission to return to their home state with Baby Boy A.2 ¶6 On May 5, 2006, the district court set the application to terminate parental rights of the putative father for a hearing. Upon notice of the hearing, the putative father submitted to a paternity test which determined that he is the biological father of Baby Boy A. On the scheduled hearing date, June 12, 2006, the biological father filed a response, alleging that in August of 2005 he became aware of the birth mother’s

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

claim that he was the father, he is the biological father of Baby Boy A, he is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and his consent to the adoption is necessary. The biological father expressly withheld his consent to the adoption, and the district court appointed the Oklahoma County Public Defender to serve as attorney for Baby Boy A. ¶7 On June 14, 2006, the Cherokee Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were served notice of the adoption proceeding. On June 26, 2006, to assure compliance with the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., the birth mother with her attorney and the first law firm for the prospective adoptive parents appeared before the district court, and the birth mother reaffirmed her April 17, 2006 testimony and again relinquished her parental rights and consented to the adoption of Baby Boy A. On June 28, 2006, the Cherokee Nation filed notice of its right to intervene pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1911 to insure placement of Baby Boy A in compliance with the federal Indian child welfare statutes. ¶8 On July 7, 2006, the prospective adoptive parents changed attorneys, and thereafter, they were represented by their second law firm. On August 2, 2006, the prospective adoptive parents filed an objection to the Cherokee Nation’s intervention. ¶9 In an August 28, 2006 minute order, the district court, having considered briefs submitted by the prospective adoptive parents and the Cherokee Nation, found that the proceeding was one for adoption without consent of the putative father and not for termination of parental rights of the putative father, and as such, the Cherokee Nation had no standing to intervene in that aspect of the adoption proceedings. On November 7, 2006, the journal entry of the August 28th minute order was filed and a hearing was set for January 9, 2007, on the Cherokee Nation’s request to show good cause for deviation from the federal Indian child welfare statutory preference requirements for placement of an Indian child. ¶10 Also on November 7, 2006, the biological father, his wife, his attorney, and the public defender appeared before the district court.

The biological father executed his permanent relinquishment of parental rights and consent to the adoption of Baby Boy A and gave testimony concerning his relinquishment of parental rights and consent to adoption. The district court questioned the biological father and exeVol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

cuted the certification/verification as required by the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S.2001, §§ 7503-2.3 and 7503-2.4. ¶11 Attorneys for the prospective adoptive parents, the birth mother, Baby Boy A, and the Cherokee Nation appeared at the good cause hearing held on January 29, 2007. The district court ruled that the natural parents’ unified voice consenting to the adoption of Baby Boy A constituted good cause to deviate from the federal statutory placement preferences. The Cherokee Nation filed a motion to reconsider asserting that the hearing was not actually a good cause hearing. In a supplemental ruling, the district court found that the Cherokee Nation had the opportunity to produce evidence as to the lack of good cause, but did not do so. The Cherokee Nation appealed. This Court dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable order.3 ¶12 Hearing on the final decree of adoption was set for May 16, 2007. The day before the hearing, the biological father revoked his relinquishment of parental rights and consent to adoption. The prospective adoptive parents objected to the revocation and, on July 5, 2007, filed an application to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and to determine the child eligible for adoption without his consent.

The biological father changed attorneys, and on July 9, 2007, the district court set dates for depositions of the biological father and his wife, the pre-trial conference, and the trial. ¶13 On January 9, 2008, the biological father stipulated that he did not contribute to the support of the birth mother during her pregnancy; he did not pay any medical expenses for the birth of the minor child; he had not contributed to the minor child’s support; and based upon these facts, his parental rights should be terminated and his consent to the adoption is not required. The district court entered an order adjudicating Baby Boy A eligible for adoption without consent of the biological father. ¶14 On January 30, 2008, the district court appointed the Oklahoma County Public Defender to assist the court in reviewing the adoption-related expenses in accordance with a local court administrative directive.4 In April of 2008, the prospective adoptive parents filed their affidavit, amended affidavit, and addendum to affidavit disclosing a total of $98,161.71 expended for adoption-related fees, costs, and expenses: $3,536.70 for their home state law firm, $65,189.51 for the second law firm, $13,362.50 for birth mother’s attorney,

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1129

$13,000.00 for a private investigator, and $3,073.00 for a home study and updates. The prospective adoptive parents’ first law firm also filed an affidavit disclosing a total of $36,068.86 adoption-related expenditures, which included $20,000.00 for their attorney fees, $12,498.36 for birth mother’s living expenses, $917.50 for medical expenses, $153.00 for the adoption filing fee, $2,500.00 for the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children fee, and other miscellaneous expenses.

¶17 On July 29, 2008, the district court entered the final decree of adoption, and also entered an order approving the expenditure of $13,058.85 for additional attorney fees and expenses for the second law firm. The Oklahoma County Public Defender filed an amended petition in error for appellate review of the order approving additional expenditures.5 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court orders. The public defender petitioned for certiorari review.

¶15 The public defender objected to the reasonableness of the expenditures, urging the district court to reject the second law firm’s minimum fifteen-minute charge for a phone call, to reduce the second law firm’s hourly rate charged for traveling to and from the court house, to reduce the number of hours the second law firm charged for a six-page brief, and to reject the first law firm’s flat fee that was not based on actual time worked. The public defender asked the district court to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees for each attorney using the criteria set out in State ex rel.

Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5, 5 O.S.2001, ch.1, app.3-A. The public defender also objected to the private investigator’s fee, arguing that it is not an allowed expenditure under the controlling statute.

¶18 On certiorari, the public defender asserts that the term “reasonable” as used in the Section 7505-3.2 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires an independent judicial examination of the fees, costs, and expenses and a determination of reasonableness based upon the prospective adoptive parents’ proof. The public defender’s certiorari arguments present the two first impression questions raised in the petition in error: 1) Does § 7505-3.2 impose a duty upon the district court to inquire into the reasonableness of each and every expense item for which the prospective adoptive parents expended money in connection with the adoption? 2) Does § 7505-3.2 require the prospective adoptive parents to submit proof that all fees, costs, and expenses paid in connection with the adoption are reasonable? We previously granted the petition for certiorari review.

¶16 On June 10, 2008, the district court heard testimony from an attorney with the first law firm and arguments on the public defender’s objections. The district court acknowledged that the amount of expenses in this case gave him pause, but he found that in the absence of objection by the people paying the expenses, the contracts are reasonable, and he concluded that the public defender had the burden to produce evidence showing the adoption-related expenditures to be unreasonable. The district court approved the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures in two separate orders: one order approved the $36,068.86 disclosed by the first law firm, and the other approved the $98,161.71 disclosed by the prospective adoptive parents’ affidavit. The Oklahoma County Public Defender appealed the two orders, contending that the party seeking approval of fees, costs, and expenses has the burden to prove reasonableness under the criteria set out in Burk and Rule 1.5, and the trial court has the duty to independently determine the reasonableness of adoption-related expenditures.

1130

II. Standard of Review ¶19 The standard of review of the reasonableness of the attorney fees is abuse of discretion whether the appellate court is reviewing attorney fees awarded by the court, Burk v.

Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115 at ¶19, 598 P.2d at 663, or attorney fees charged pursuant to an attorney/client contract. Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 106, ¶¶5-6, 777 P.2d 394, 395.

The reasonableness of expenses is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green v. Freede, 1997 OK 33, ¶29, 936 P.2d 906, 913. The appellate court will reverse for abuse of discretion where the lower court ruling is without a rational basis in the evidence or where it is based upon an erroneous legal conclusion. Thomas v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 2004 OK 82, ¶7, 102 P.3d 133, 136. ¶20 The first impression questions argued on certiorari are questions of statutory construction. Statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review in the appellate court.

St. John Medical Center v. Bilby, 2007 OK 37, ¶2, 160 P.3d 978, 979. De novo review is plenary,

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

independent, and non-deferential to the lower courts. Id. III. Section 7505-3.2 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes imposes a duty upon the district court to conduct a thorough inquiry into each and every expenditure made in connection with the adoption and the supporting evidence and to determine the legality and reasonableness of the expenditures. ¶21 Oklahoma has a strong public policy against buying or selling children for adoption.

The anti-trafficking in children statutes, 21 O.S.2001, §§ 865 - 869, as amended, make it a crime to accept, solicit, offer, pay, or transfer anything of value in connection with an adoption except as allowed in 10 O.S.2001, § 7505-3.2, as amended.6 Section 7505-3.2(A) requires the prospective adoptive parents, prior to a final decree of adoption, to disclose by affidavit all fees, costs, and expenses and all funds or monies expended or expected to be expended in connection with the adoption. 10 O.S.Supp.2009, § 7505-3.2(A)(1). Subsection A requires the district court to review the prospective adoptive parents’ affidavit and decide whether all costs and expenses have been disclosed, whether the fees, costs, and expenses are reasonable, and whether any expenditure violates the anti-trafficking in children statutes. Id. § 7505-3.2(A)(2).

The subsection also requires the district court to disapprove in writing and order reimbursement of any expenditure by the prospective adoptive parents that is determined to be unreasonable or in violation of the antitrafficking in children law. Id. ¶22 The fees, costs, and expenses for which the prospective adoptive parents may pay money, property, or other thing of value, are listed in § 7505-3.2(B)(1)(a-h): a. reasonable attorney fees and court costs, b. reasonable medical expenses for birth mother and minor to be adopted, c. reasonable adoption counseling expenses for birth parents before and after the birth of the minor, not to exceed six (6) months from placement of the minor, d. reasonable fees of a licensed child-placement agency, e. reasonable living expenses for housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities of the birth mother that are incurred during the adoption planning process or during the pregnancy, not to exceed two (2) months after the birth of the minor or after Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

the consent or relinquishment of the birth mother, f. reasonable costs for travel or transportation of the birth mother or minor as same is incurred for medical or adoption placement needs, g. reasonable expenses for a home study, and h. reasonable expenses legally required by any governmental entity related to the adoption of a minor.

Subsection B also permits the court to approve other adoption-related costs and expenses needed due to unusual circumstances. Id. § 7505-3.2(B)(4). The Oklahoma Comments to § 7505-3.2 indicate that the district court may only approve those adoption-related expenses listed in § 7505-3.2 and those ordered by the court due to unusual circumstances. ¶23 The district court’s duties under § 75053.2 are unmistakable.7 Section 7505-3.2 clearly mandates a thorough and rigorous inquiry into the adoption-related expenditures by the district court as part of the adoption proceedings.

The obvious goal to be achieved by this mandated district court inquiry of expenditures in connection with an adoption is to thwart the subtle as well as the apparent buying and selling of children.8 ¶24 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court, in its review of the prospective adoptive parents’ affidavit of expenditures, must thoroughly examine each and every expenditure disclosed by the affidavit and the evidence offered in support of the expenditure, and determine the legality and reasonableness of each expenditure. Before approving the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures, the district court must be satisfied that all expenditures have been disclosed and that the expenditures are authorized by § 7505-3.2. If an expenditure is not specifically listed in § 75053.2(B) or has not been previously authorized based upon a finding of unusual circumstance by the court, the district court must, in writing, disapprove the expenditure and order reimbursement. If an expenditure is not reasonable, it is not in compliance with § 7505-3.2(B), and the district court must, in writing, disapprove the expenditure and order reimbursement.

IV. Section 7505-3.2 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires that adoption-related fees, costs, and expenses approved by the district court should be commensurate with customary fees and

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1131

expenses; and it leaves the district court with the discretion to approve an amount of adoption-related attorney fees determined under relevant Burk criteria. ¶25 The public defender urges that the reasonableness of the attorney fees and expenses charged the prospective adoptive parents should be determined using the criteria in Rule 1.5, Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2001, ch.1, app.3-A, and State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659. Under Rule 1.5, attorneys have the professional responsibility not to make an agreement for, charge, or collect unreasonable fees or expenses. Rule 1.5 lists eight factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the contract, charge, or fee. Burk listed the same eight factors for determining the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded by the court.9 ¶26 Burk considered the reasonableness of an attorney fee award to be paid out of an equitable fund. Burk established a two-part reasonableness test: 1) a base fee calculated by multiplying hours worked by an hourly rate, and 2) a bonus or incentive fee calculated under the eight factors listed in Rule1.5. This Court has used the Burk criteria in cases where there was no equitable fund and no incentive or bonus fee. In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Parker, 1987 OK 16, 737 P.2d 1186, the telephone company sued to collect $3,867.00 on a yellow pages advertising contract, and before trial, it accepted Parker’s offer to a confessed judgment of $1,500.00. The plaintiff recovered a judgment by confession under § 1101 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes and was a prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees under § 936 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes. In applying the Burk criteria, Parker relied on several cases that had applied the Burk criteria in determining the reasonableness of attorney fee awards: Professional Construction Consultants, Inc. v. State, 1982 OK 61, 646 P.2d 1262, involving a § 936 attorney fee; Matter of Estate of Bartlett, 1984 OK 9, 680 P.2d 369, involving an attorney fee for representation of the administrator in probate in connection with the preservation of the estate; and Briscoe v. Harper Oil Co., 1985 OK 43, 702 P.2d 33, involving an attorney fee for damages to real property. ¶27 The Burk criteria are the standard by which our courts test the reasonableness of attorney fee contracts as well as attorney fee awards. We applied the Burk criteria to determine the reasonableness of attorney fees 1132

charged pursuant to a contract to defend against a mortgage foreclosure, Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott, 1989 OK 106, 777 P.2d 394, and to calculate a reasonable amount where there was a contingent fee agreement. Oliver’s Sports Center, Inc. v. National Standard Insur. Co., 1980 OK 120, 615 P.2d 291, 295; Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 1998 OK 130, ¶14, 977 P.2d 357. Morgan made it clear that an attorney fee must be reasonable in every case whether the fee is paid by the client or by the losing litigant. 1998 OK 130 at ¶14, 977 P.2d at 364. ¶28 Section 7505-3.2(B)(1)(a-h) expressly allows the prospective adoptive parents to pay reasonable attorney fees, as well as reasonable charges for medical services, counseling services, living and travel expenses, child-placement fees, and home investigation expenses in connection with the adoption. Section 75053.2(A)(2) expressly requires the district court to determine that the fees, costs, and expenses paid in connection with an adoption are reasonable. The statute does not permit a presumption that the attorney/client contract is reasonable. In an adoption proceeding, the district court must determine the reasonableness of the written or oral attorney fee contract and the reasonableness of the amount of attorney fees and expenses charged. ¶29 Section 7505-3.2(B)(2) provides that “(i)n addition, all expenses approved by the court should be commensurate with other customary fees for similar services by persons of equivalent experience and training where the services are performed.” This language contemplates that the district court, in determining reasonableness of the fees, costs, and expenses, will measure the fees, costs, and expenses listed in § 7505-3.2(B)(1)(a-h) or authorized by the district court upon a finding of unusual circumstance by the customary fees and expenses in the community. The district court must consider the customary fees and expenses in the community. ¶30 Although “customary fees” is one Burk criterion, we glean no legislative intent in § 7505-3.2 to exclude other relevant Burk criteria from the court’s consideration of the attorney fees. Reading the language in § 75053.2(B)(2) in its ordinary sense,10 the word “should” expresses an obligation rather than a strict command11 and the words “customary fees” indicate fees that are grounded in common tradition and commonly charged as a matter of course.12 The Burk criteria are deeply

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

entrenched in the awarding of attorney fees and the testing of reasonableness of attorney fee agreements. An attorney fee determined under relevant Burk criteria is within the ordinary meaning of “customary fees” as used in § 7505-3.2(B)(2). ¶31 In addition to being satisfied that the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures are reasonable in amount, the district court must be satisfied that the expenditures are reasonably related to or connected with the adoption.

Section 7505-3.2 repeatedly utilizes “adoptionrelated” and “in connection with the adoption” to modify expenses and expenditures, for instance “in connection with the adoption of a minor” in § 7505-3.2(A)(1), “adoption-related costs and expenses” and “pay in connection with an adoption” in § 7505-3.2(B)(1), “additional costs and expenses in connection with an adoption” in § 7505-3.2(B)(4), and “payment of adoption-related expenses” in § 7505-3.2(D)(2). ¶32 Accordingly, we conclude that under 10 O.S.Supp.2009, § 7505-3.2, in approving the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures in connection with the adoption, the district court must determine whether the expenses and services were reasonably related to the adoption and the amounts paid for the expenses and services were commensurate with the customary fees and costs for similar services by persons of equivalent experience and training where the services are performed. We further conclude that the district court has the discretion to approve an amount of adoption-related attorney fees determined under relevant Burk criteria.13 V. The prospective adoptive parents have the burden to prove to the district court that all monies they paid or expect to pay in connection with the adoption were for reasonable fees, costs, and expenses listed in 10 O.S.Supp.2009, § 7505-3.2 or were authorized by the court upon a finding of unusual circumstance. ¶33 By filing their affidavit disclosing adoption-related expenditures, the prospective adoptive parents moved the district court to find that the expenditures are reasonable and to approve the expenditures. Generally, a moving party has the burden to provide the court with both the legal and evidentiary support for the relief sought. Sloan v. Owen, 1977 OK 239, ¶9, 579 P.2d 812, 814 (burden of proof of witness fees on moving party). Regarding attorney fees, we have long held the party moving Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

for an attorney fee to the duty of demonstrating the reasonableness of the fee to the trial court. Prager’s Paris Fashion v. Seidenbach, 1925 OK 761, 242 P. 260, 263, concluded that plaintiffs’ cause of action was predicated on an obligation providing for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees, plaintiffs had the duty to show that the amount of attorney fee they paid or became liable to pay was the usual customary fee paid for such services and the amount was reasonable, and the burden did not shift to the opposing party to show that such fee was unreasonable. Security Nat. Bank of Enid v. Bonnett, 1980 OK CIV APP 63, ¶9, 623 P.2d 1061, 1064 (approved for publication by the Supreme Court), explained that parties are free to contract for a reasonable attorney fee, but if the fee is challenged as excessive or exorbitant, the trial court must take evidence as to the reasonableness of the fee and fix an attorney fee that is reasonable and commensurate with the work performed by the attorney. ¶34 Burk’s guidance to the members of the bar squarely placed the duty on the attorney seeking an attorney fee award to produce detailed time records and evidence of reasonableness not only in equitable fund cases, but in every case: Hereafter, attorneys in this state should be required to present to the trial court detailed time records showing the work performed and offer evidence as to the reasonable value for the services performed for different types of legal work. Reasonable value of services should be predicated on the standards within the local legal community. This will enable trial courts to remove the fixing of attorney fees, not only in this type of action, but in every case, from the realm of speculation and guesswork into the area of simple mathematical computation. The trial court may then, with certainty, determine the compensatory fees.

Burk, 598 P.2d at 663. ¶35 Following the Burk decision, Oliver’s Sports Center, Inc., 1980 OK 120, at ¶8, 615 P.2d at 295, reiterated that an attorney seeking an attorney fee has the burden to present to the court detailed time records of the work performed and evidence of the reasonable value for the services performed for different types of legal work. Oliver’s Sports Center reasoned:

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1133

The general agreement in all jurisdictions is that the time and labor spent by the attorney in performing services for which compensation is sought is an important factor to be considered in setting a reasonable fee. However, it is also commonly agreed that the time element must be considered in connection with other factors.

Fees cannot fairly be awarded on the basis of time alone. The use of time as the sole criterion is of dubious value because economy of time could cease to be a virtue; and inexperience, inefficiency, and incompetence may be rewarded to the detriment of expeditious disposition of litigation. . . .

1980 OK 120 at ¶6, 615 P.2d at 295. Following this reasoning, Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22, 681 P.2d 754, 756, and Adams v. Unterkircher, 1985 OK 96, 714 P.2d 193, 197, rejected a simple mathematical formula of hours multiplied by hourly rate that might reward inexperience and inefficiency and penalize experience and efficiency. ¶36 The reasonableness of attorney fees and expenses is a question for the trier of fact, Arkoma Gas Co. v. Otis Engineering Corp., 1993 OK 27, ¶8, 849 P.2d 392, 394, and the fees and expenses must be supported by evidence and reason. Finnell v. Seismic, 2003 OK 35, ¶18, 67 P.3d 339, 346-347. Like attorney fees, the reasonableness of other fees, costs, and expenses in connection with an adoption presents a question of fact that must be supported by evidence and reason. See Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green v. Freede, 1997 OK 33, at ¶¶30-32, 936 P.2d at 913. Accordingly, we conclude that the prospective adoptive parents have the burden to present sufficient evidence to the district court proving that all monies they paid or expect to pay in connection with the adoption were for reasonable fees, costs, and expenses listed in 10 O.S.Supp.2009, § 7505-3.2, or expenses authorized by the court upon a finding of unusual circumstance.

VI. The district court abused its discretion in approving the adoption-related expenditures without a thorough inquiry into the fees, costs, and expenses and without sufficient evidence establishing the reasonableness of the fees, costs, and expenses. ¶37 The evidence before the district court supporting the $147,289.42 paid in connection with this adoption included: 1) the prospective adoptive parents’ affidavit with an attached contract with the second law firm and the time 1134

records from those attorneys; 2) prospective adoptive parents’ amended affidavit disclosing a private investigator’s fee of $13,000.00 without any contract or time records attached thereto; 3) the prospective adoptive parents’ addendum summarizing the private investigator’s services; 4) the first law firm’s affidavit disclosing fees, costs, and expenses, without any contracts, time records, receipts, or other proof of payments attached thereto; and 5) testimony from an attorney with the first law firm admitting that she did not bring her contract with the prospective adoptive parents to the hearing, that the $20,000.00 flat fee is her standard fee for an adoption, whether contested or not, and that the prospective adoptive parents did not ask for a refund when they hired the second law firm and she did not offer to refund any of the $20,000.00 fee. The record on appeal contains the summaries of the second law firm’s time records which the public defender prepared to demonstrate the excessive charges.

But, as detailed below, the evidence in the record on appeal is insufficient support for the district court’s finding of reasonableness of the expenditures for fees, costs, and expenses, and this case must be remanded. a. The fees, costs, and expenses listed in § 7505-3.2(B)(1)(a-h) other than attorney fees ¶38 The first law firm’s affidavit disclosed medical-related expenses in the amount of $865.49, although the prospective adoptive parents indicated that all medical expenses were paid by an insurer, and there are no billings or receipts for payment of medical expenses. The first law firm’s affidavit disclosed $389.25 for transportation expenses, but there was no showing that it was for the birth mother or the minor child for medical or adoption placement. The first law firm’s affidavit disclosed $11,498.36 for living expenses of the birth mother, but presented no receipts for the expenditures. The first law firm’s affidavit also disclosed expenditures in the amount of $153.00 for court filing fees, $828.00 for transcripts, process service, fingerprint search, etc., and $2,500.00 for the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) fee, but offered no evidence thereof. Finally, the prospective adoptive parents’ affidavit disclosed a $500.00 application fee paid to the first law firm without any explanation, and it disclosed either $1,300.00 or $1,800.00 for the home study and $1,673.00 for three post-placement reviews without any evidence regarding the customary fee in Oklahoma for these services.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

¶39 Although the above expenses, other than the ICPC fee and the application fee, appear to be reasonably related to the adoption and reasonable in amount, a finding of reasonableness must be grounded in evidence. On remand, the adoptive parents and attorneys must offer their documentation for these expenditures and any customary fees and expenses as evidence for the district court’s consideration and determination of reasonableness. ¶40 As to the $2,500.00 ICPC fee, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services contracts for the administration of ICPC adoption services, and there is a $250.00 fee for processing independent and private agency adoptions paid directly to the contractor. Oklahoma Administrative Code, 340:75-15-61. On remand the first law firm must prove that the $2,500.00 is a legally required governmental fee. If not, the district court must order the first law firm to reimburse the adoptive parents in accordance with § 7505-3.2(A)(1). The first law firm must also prove that the $500.00 application fee is a legally required governmental fee, and if not, the district court must order the first law firm to reimburse the adoptive parents in accordance with § 7505-3.2(A)(1). b. The private investigator’s fee ¶41 In regards to the $13,000.00 fee for the private investigator, § 7505-3.2 does not list fees for a private investigator as a permissible expenditure in connection with an adoption, and the district court did not determine that this adoption involved unusual circumstances necessitating the services of a private investigator. According to the April 23, 2008 affidavit of the prospective adoptive parents, they had an agreement with the private investigator,14 but they did not submit the agreement as evidence nor did they set forth the unusual circumstances that necessitated the private investigator’s services. ¶42 According to his affidavit and a letter detailing his work in the case, the private investigator investigated the biological father for seventeen months, from July of 2006 through November of 2007, and tracked the whereabouts of the birth mother for six months from July through December of 2006. These purported adoption-related investigations were conducted even though the prospective adoptive parents had custody of Baby Boy A in another state, the birth mother had already twice consented to the adoption of her minor child and twice relinquished her parental rights Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

before the district court, the birth mother and/ or her attorney were participating in the adoption proceedings during the time she was being tracked by the private investigator, and the biological father and/or his attorney were participating in the adoption proceedings during the time the private investigator physically tracked and photographed both the biological father and his wife and placed GPS units on their vehicles. Further, the biological father had also relinquished his parental rights for some six months of the investigation. The record on appeal does not indicate any adoption-related need for the private investigator’s physical surveillance of the birth mother and the biological father and his wife and the electronic tracking of the vehicles driven by the biological father and his wife, nor does it show that the private investigator contributed in the least to the adoption of Baby Boy A by these adoptive parents. ¶43 The statute, § 7505-3.2, does not specifically authorize the payment of costs and expenses of a private investigator, and the appellate record does not reveal that the district court determined there was a need for a private investigator due to unusual circumstances in this adoption in accordance with § 7505-3.2(B)(4). The $13,000.00 expenditure for a private investigator does not appear to have any genuine connection to the adoption. These are facts, however, that should have been determined by the trial court as the finder of facts. In the absence of an order of the district court authorizing the private investigation of the biological mother and father of the minor child in this adoption case based upon a finding of unusual circumstances, on remand, the district court must disapprove the $13,000.00 expenditure and order reimbursement to the adoptive parents15 in accordance with § 75053.2(A)(1). c. The attorney fees and expenses ¶44 As to the attorney fees and expenses, the affidavits disclose the following expenditures: $13,362.50 for representation of the birth mother, $20,000.00 for representation of prospective adoptive parents by the first law firm, $3,536.70 for prospective adoptive parents’ attorney in their home state, and $65,189.51 for representation of the prospective adoptive parents by the second law firm and an additional $13,058.85 for the second law firm subsequent to the filing of the affidavit. Regarding the more than

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1135

$100,000.00 in attorney fees, the district court announced from the bench: I find the attorney fees that are cited by [first law firm], the attorney fees that are cited by [second law firm] are reasonable and I do base that primarily on the fact that it’s consistent with the contracts that were entered in this case by the petitioners, and my opinion that there is no evidence to suggest that those contracts were entered into blindly or entered inappropriately or with any intent to take advantage of the petitioners or that they aren’t justified by the amount of work effort that took place in the various stages of this case. The demurrer of [second law firm] is sustained. ¶45 The district court presumed that the attorney fee agreements in this case were reasonable and that all the charges were consistent with the contracts. There is only one contract in the record on appeal, the second law firm’s contract. The second law firm’s billing statements reveal numerous charges for attorney fees and expenses that are contrary to the contract, not included in the contract, or facially unreasonable. Charging fifteen cents per copy for thousands of copies is inconsistent with the ten-cent copy charge specified in the contract.16 Charging $275.00 an hour to prepare a document justifying the private investigator’s fee is outside the contract. Charging a nearly $800.00 expense for the private investigator to deliver a proposed journal entry to the birth mother’s attorney and to the Cherokee Nation’s attorney is facially unreasonable. Stacking a $200.00 an hour fee for a second attorney to attend a hearing, apparently as an observer, when the contract does not specify a $200.00 hourly rate, is outside the contract. Double charging $825.00 for the hours worked in December of 2007 is facially unreasonable. ¶46 It is obvious that the district court did not examine the second law firm’s billing statements for reasonableness. Even if the hourly rates were reasonable and the legal issues were complex, the more than seventy thousand dollars in fees and expenses for the second law firm has obvious excess. On remand, the district court must cull through the charges for legal services and reject 1) any unreasonable number of hours for the legal service performed, 2) any duplicate billings, 3) any stacking of hours for two or three attorneys to perform the same legal service, 4) the fifteen1136

cent copy charge, 5) the private investigator’s delivery charge, and 6) any other charges the district court deems inconsistent with § 75053.2. As to the fifteen-minute minimum charge for a phone call and the hourly rate for travel time, the district court must determine reasonable amounts of time and reasonable rates for the type of service performed. ¶47 As to the first law firm’s flat fee of $20,000.00, it appears to be an unreasonable charge for the routine legal services performed.

The contract is not in the record, and there is no proof to show the reasonableness of the more than $36,000.00 of expenditures set out in the first law firm’s affidavit. On remand, the first law firm must provide the contract and proof of the legality and reasonableness of every item charged the prospective adoptive parents so the district court can determine the reasonableness of the charges. ¶48 As to the birth mother’s attorney, she charged some $13,000.00 for her services and expenses. The record indicates the attorney consulted with the birth mother, made two routine appearances in court for the birth mother to relinquish her parental rights and to consent to the adoption, appeared at the good cause hearing, and reported her fees to the public defender. The record on appeal indicates that this attorney was involved in the routine adoption proceedings but did not brief or argue the more complex legal issues. On remand, the birth mother’s attorney must provide the district court with sufficient evidence for a determination of the reasonableness of the attorney fees. ¶49 In approving the attorney fee expenditures by the prospective adoptive parents, the district court began with a statement that “you would be inclined automatically to say that [the $100,000.00] is outrageous, that is certainly unreasonable.” The district court then said that “this case is not like any other” and “it has generated a lot of attorney fees.” Apparently, the district court viewed this adoption as a highly complex case. We do not agree. The record before us demonstrates that this case was closer to a routine adoption than a complex legal contest. On remand, the district court must focus upon whether the attorney fees were necessary and reasonable rather than the fees that were “generated.” In summary, the district court must determine, as to all attorneys whose fees and expenses were paid by the prospective adoptive parents, the neces-

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

sary legal services, a reasonable number of hours needed to perform the legal services, and a fair hourly rate, or rates if different levels of skill are involved, for the legal services based on the customary charge in this state for the services and any other Burk criteria the court deems relevant. If the amount charged in accordance with the contract is greater than the reasonable amount, the court may approve only the reasonable fee and expenses and must order reimbursement of any excess amount in accordance with § 7505-3.2(A)(1).

VII. Conclusion ¶50 Under the governing statute, 10 O.S.Supp.2009, § 7505-3.2, the district court, in approving adoption-related expenditures, must be free from doubt that the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures are reasonable and not in violation of the anti-trafficking in children statutes. Under the statute, the district court is the gatekeeper protecting the vulnerable prospective adoptive parents from excessive charges for the adoption and preventing prospective adoptive parents from making excessive payments for the adoption. ¶51 In this adoption proceeding, neither the prospective adoptive parents nor the several attorneys presented the district court with sufficient evidence to prove the reasonableness of the expenditures and the district court did not inquire into the reasonableness of the fees, costs, and expenses paid by the prospective adoptive parents. The district court’s approval of the expenditures in this adoption proceeding is based on an erroneous legal presumption of reasonableness and it is not supported by sufficient evidence of reasonableness. Accordingly, we hold the district court abused its discretion when it approved the prospective adoptive parents’ expenditures in connection with the adoption. We reverse the district court orders filed on June 10, 2008, and on July 29, 2008, and remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT ORDERS APPROVING PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Edmondson, C.J., Taylor, V.C.J., and Opala, Kauger, Watt, Winchester, Colbert, and Reif, JJ., concur.

Hargrave, J., dissents.

APPENDIX Section 7505-3.2 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes, with 2009 amendments shown by strikeout and underline, 2009 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 107, § 3, effective November 1, 2009, reads: A. 1. An affidavit shall be attached to the petition for adoption, or may be filed after the filing of the petition for adoption, but prior to the final decree of adoption, which discloses to the court all of the costs, funds, or monies expended by the adoptive family or expected to be expended in connection with the adoption of a minor.

2. No final decree of adoption shall be entered until the court is satisfied that all costs and expenses have been disclosed, are reasonable, and that the costs and expenses do not violate the provisions of subsection B of this section.

Upon its review of the affidavit of monies expended, the court shall in writing disapprove any expenditure that the court deems unreasonable or in violation of Sections 865 through 869 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and, to the extent necessary to comply with Oklahoma law, shall order reimbursement of any consideration given in violation of Sections 865 through 869 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Payments made pursuant to this section shall not be a violation of Sections 865 through 869 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

B. 1. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the following list of adoption-related costs and expenses specified in this paragraph may be deemed proper items for a person to pay in connection with an adoption: a. reasonable attorney fees and court costs, b. reasonable medical expenses for birth mother and minor to be adopted, c. reasonable adoption counseling expenses for birth parents before and after the birth of the minor, not to exceed six (6) months from placement of the minor, d. reasonable fees of a licensed child-placement agency, e. reasonable living expenses for housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities of the birth mother that are incurred during the

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1137

adoption planning process or during the pregnancy, not to exceed two (2) months after the birth of the minor or after the consent or relinquishment of the birth mother, f. reasonable costs for travel or transportation of the birth mother or minor as same is incurred for medical or adoption placement needs, g. reasonable expenses for a home study, and h. reasonable expenses legally required by any governmental entity related to the adoption of a minor.

2. In addition, all expenses approved by the court should be commensurate with other customary fees for similar services by persons of equivalent experience and training where the services are performed. Any services provided outside this state shall be allowed in an amount as if the services had been performed within the State of Oklahoma.

3. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to living and transportation expenses incurred after the biological mother of the minor contacts the child-placing agency or attorney for adoption services.

4. The provisions of this subsection shall not prohibit a court from extending any time period, or including any additional costs and expenses in connection with an adoption other than those specified in this subsection based on unusual circumstances or need.

5. Except as otherwise ordered by the court except for good cause shown, all payments made pursuant to this section shall be paid directly to the third-party provider of services or goods.

C. Any person desiring to pay living and transportation expenses to or on behalf of a birth parent is authorized to expend an initial amount not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for such costs and expenses without first obtaining court approval as required by paragraph 1 of subsection D of this section.

Any such costs and expenses shall be disclosed as is otherwise required by the Oklahoma Adoption Code.

which exceed the amount in subsection C of this section shall file a petition for an order approving payment of adoption-related expenses.

3. The petition for an order approving payment of adoption-related expenses may shall be filed in the district court where the birth mother resides, in the county where the petitioner, attorney, or child-placing agency is located, or in the county where the adoption petition is to be filed, as provided in Section 7502-1.2 of this title.

4. The petition shall be captioned: “In the matter of Baby (name).” The petition shall include a listing of all anticipated living or transportation expenses to be paid on behalf of the birth mother for which court approval is being sought. If additional expenditures not previously authorized by the court are needed on behalf of the birth mother, an amended petition may be filed with the court.

5. The petition shall be heard by the court within ten (10) days of filing. The court clerk shall charge the same cost for a petition for payment of expenses as is charged for the filing of an adoption petition. In the event an adoption petition is later filed in the same county, the adoption petition shall be filed as an amended petition within the same case in which payment for expenses was approved and no additional court costs shall be required.

In the event a petition for preadoption termination of parental rights is later filed in the same county, the court clerk shall not assess an additional filing fee and may use the same case number as for the petition for adoption.

6. Any order authorizing payment shall be attached to a petition for adoption. If no adoption petition is filed, the court shall retain jurisdiction to enter any orders deemed appropriate regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses paid. If the child is placed for adoption outside the State of Oklahoma, any such order shall be submitted to the Interstate Compact of the Placement of Children and to the court in the other state where the petition for adoption is to be filed.

D. 1. Except for the amount authorized by subsection C of this section, the payment of any living or transportation expenses for benefit of the birth mother as authorized in subparagraphs e and f of paragraph 1 of subsection B of this title shall be approved in advance by the court.

2. The person, attorney, or licensed childplacing agency desiring to pay living or transportation expenses on behalf of a birth mother

E. 1. In addition to the adoptive family affidavit requirement of subsection A of this section, a Disclosure Statement of Adoption-related Costs and Expenditures shall be prepared in writing by the attorney, child-placing agency, or person facilitating in a direct-placement adoption. The Disclosure Statement of Adoption-related Costs and Expenditures shall include a declaration of all fees, expenses, and costs charged or expected

1138

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

to be charged for the adoption including, but not limited to, the following: a. retainer fees, the hourly rate, and the number of hours billed for the adoption, b. any fee charged for preplacement or other home studies of any prospective birth parents, regardless of whether the home study was performed by an outside agency, c. any costs, fees or expenses or any other thing of value paid to or on behalf of the birth parents related to the adoption of a minor by any party other than the adoptive parents, and d. any other fees and expenses related to the adoption not otherwise specifically listed in this section.

2. The Disclosure Statement of Adoptionrelated Costs and Expenditures containing true and accurate information shall be filed before the final decree of adoption is ordered in each adoption of a minor in this state. The statement shall be a public record; provided, that any information identifying the attorney, childplacing agency, or person facilitating in the direct adoption shall not be made public. In addition, the identity of the child, the adoptive parents, and the birth parents shall not be made public.

1. For this adoption, the prospective adoptive parents engaged three different law firms. They engaged their first law firm, Julie A. Demastus and Tina Peot, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to arrange the adoption. The first law firm initiated the adoption proceedings in the Oklahoma County District Court. They engaged their second law firm, Echols & Associates, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when the biological father contested the adoption. They also engaged a third law firm in their home state. This opinion refers to the law firms in Oklahoma as the first law firm and the second law firm and the home state law firm as the home state law firm.

2. Under the Interstate Compact for Placement of Children, 10 O.S.2001, §§ 571-576, a compact adopted by all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, the receiving state must approve the placement of the child before the sending state permits the out-ofstate placement.

3. In the Matter of B.B.A., No. 104,730, was dismissed by unpublished order filed September 24, 2007. The Cherokee Nation filed an appeal from the final decree of adoption, raising the good cause question. In this second appeal by the Cherokee Nation, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court ruling. In the Matter of B.B.A., Minor Child, 2009 OK CIV APP 80, 224 P.3d 1285. The Cherokee Nation did not seek certiorari review.

4. The administrative directive is not in the record on appeal. However in the hearing on June 10, 2008, the district court explained that it was in response to a grand jury investigation, and it required the appointment of the public defender to assist the court in reviewing adoption-related costs and expenses and to advocate for strict compliance with the law. It is likely the district court was referring to the administrative directive described in the concurring opinion in Matter of the Adoption of Baby G., 2008 OK 92, ¶4, 195 P.3d 377, 380 (Kauger, J., concurring).

5. The final decree of adoption is not on appeal.

6. In 1997, the Legislature enacted substantial changes to the Oklahoma Adoption Act, renumbering, recodifying, and renaming it the Oklahoma Adoption Code. 1997 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 366 (codified at 10 O.S.2001, §§ 7501-1.1 - 7510-3.3). Section 7505-3.2 was enacted as part of the Oklahoma Adoption Code. Id. § 25. It authorized expenditures in connection with an adoption, required prospective adoptive parents to disclose all expenditures in connection with the adoption, and required court approval of all such expenditures. Prior to 1997, disclosure of expenditures was required in 10 O.S.1991, § 60.12, and expen-

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

ditures for medical, legal, child-placing, and investigation and counseling services were exceptions to the crime of trafficking in children specified in 21 O.S.1991, § 866(4).

In 2005, the Legislature amended § 7505-3.2, adding language allowing the birth mother’s expenses for housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities to be paid in connection with an adoption.

2005 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 57, § 2. Before the 2005 amendment, living expenses for the birth mother were allowed only in cases of extraordinary need.

In 2009, the Legislature amended § 7505-3.2, adding language requiring disclosure of adoption-related cost and expense statements from attorneys, child-placing agencies, or persons facilitating in a direct-placement adoption. 2009 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 107, § 2. The provisions of § 7505-3.2 applicable here were in the 2005 version and were not changed in the 2009 version. This opinion cites the latest version of § 7505-3.2, which is set out in full in the appendix to this opinion.

7. There is no need for statutory construction where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous and the meaning is clear and unmistakable. Strong v. State ex rel. The Oklahoma Police Pension, 2005 OK 45, ¶8, 115 P.3d 889, 893.

8. Before the 1997 enactment of the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 21 O.S.1991, § 866(4) excluded from the crime of trafficking in children those payments that had been approved by the court for hospital and medical costs, reasonable attorney fees, licensed child-placement fees for investigation, and counseling. The 1997 amendment to § 866 excluded the costs and expenses listed in § 7505-3.2 from the crime of trafficking as long as the petitioner or birth mother complies with § 7505-3.2. 1997 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 366, § 57. Section 866 indicates that the buying and selling of children is prevented by court approval of adoption-related expenditures.

In 2006, the Legislature amended § 866, clarifying the definition of the crime of trafficking in children, including advertising within the crime, and declaring the crime to be a felony. 2006 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch.

415, § 41. Section 866 was also amended in 2009 to include the receipt of money from more than one prospective adoptive family for a minor child in the crime. 2009 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 107, § 4. This opinion cites the latest version of § 866.

9. Generally referred to as the Burk criteria, the eight factors are: 1) time and labor required, novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and skill requisite to properly perform the legal services; 2) if apparent to the client, the likelihood the representation will preclude other employment by the attorney; 3) customary charge in the community for similar legal services; 4) amount involved and results obtained; 5) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; 6) nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; 7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney performing the legal service; and 8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

10. “Words used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, except when a contrary intention plainly appears, . . . .” 25 O.S.2001, § 1.

11. The ordinary meaning of “should,” the past tense of “shall,” expresses a condition or obligation from a point of view in the past.

Webster’s Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 2104 (2002).

12. Id. at 559.

13. In adoption proceedings, consideration of relevant Burk criteria to determine reasonableness of the adoption-related attorney fees is discretionary. The district court’s decision not to consider other Burk criteria to test the reasonableness of adoption-related attorney fee expenditures would not, without more, constitute an abuse of discretion under Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 2007 OK 76, ¶11, 171 P.3d 890, 895 (ruling that the failure to follow the Burk directives in awarding an attorney fee constitutes an abuse of discretion).

14. Apparently the agreement with the private investigator was arranged by the second law firm. What appears to be an initial retainer in the amount of $2,500.00 and an initial consultation with the private investigator are documented in the billing hours of the second law firm. Also, the second law firm billed the prospective adoptive parents for preparing the private investigator’s written justification for his fee.

At the fee hearing, the lead attorney for the second law firm announced to the district court that she represented both the prospective adoptive parents and the private investigator.

15. If the private investigator’s $13,000.00 fee is disapproved, reimbursement should be accomplished through the law firm that arranged for the private investigation. The district court should order the second law firm to reimburse the $13,000.00 to the adoptive parents and authorize the second law firm to recoup the $13,000.00 from the private investigator.

16. Even though some copies were charged at seven cents per page and others at fifteen cents per page, the total expenditure for copies was more than the contracted charge of ten cents per copy.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1139

We wholeheartedly support and endorse Judge Dan Owens in his position as District Judge.

Voted by members of OCBA as one of Oklahoma County’s most outstanding Judges.

Luke Abel J. Angela Ables Murray E. Abowitz Charles F. Alden III Linda G. Alexander Ethan B. Allen, III Robert D. Allen Victoria L. Allen John M. Amick Phillip W. Anderson Scott M. Anderson Frances J. Armstrong Aaron M. Arnall Frank Austin D. Lynn Babb Gary C. Bachman Stephen D. Bachman Burck Bailey John E. Barbush Robert D. Baron A. Gabriel Bass Paige Bass Dan Batchelor Niki S. Batt Ray Bays Hugh A. Baysinger David O. Beal Jeff R. Beeler James H. Bellingham James Belote Lewis A. Berkowitz Howard Berry III Mark E. Bialick Lynn Bilodeau

Rick W. Bisher C. Temple Bixler Mitch Blackburn Kevin Blaney Todd Blasdel Johnny R. Blassingame James B. Blevins Joseph H. Bocock Timothy J. Bomhoff Jay R. Bond Mark Bonner Walter Bower Brook Bowers David Box Blaine Boyd Michael H. Brady Charles A. Brandt Randall A. Breshears Michael W. Brewer James E. Britton George H. Brown Martin A. Brown Mark D. Brown Margo M. Brown Vance Brown Richard A. Bruce Jamie Bruehl Jennifer A. Bruner William R. Burkett Linda Burkett-O’Hern R. Kevin Butler Benjamin J. Butts Marty Cain Randall Calvert

William L. Canon John P. Caporal Joe Carson Larry G. Cassil, Sr. Greg Castro Bill Cathcart David A. Cheek Tim N. Cheek John Chiaf Gary S. Chilton Mark D. Christiansen Gary M. Chubbuck Steven Clark Andy Coats Brent D. Coldiron David H. Cole Steve A. Coleman Ron Collier J. Chris Condren J. William Conger George S. Corbyn, Jr. Laura McConnell-Corbyn Melissa Couch James C. Cox Billy M. Croll Ryan Cunningham Maxine Brown Cunnyngham J. Dillon Curran B. Wayne Dabney Irena Damnjanoska Steven W. Daniels Janice M. Dansby Gary W. Davis

George D. Davis Jack S. Dawson Jerry Day Christine Potter Dean Jacque Dean Ryan Deligans Rick Denker Stephen L. DeGiusti Brian M. Dell Derrick DeWitt David R. Dickey James W. Dobbs David H. Dobson David Donchin Bradley K. Donnell Cary Dooley Timothy C. Dowd Kevin Driskill Paul W. Dudman Travis Dunn Gerald E. Durbin W. Samuel Dykeman Joe Edwards Marc Edwards Sally Ketchum Edwards Eric Eissenstat David Elder George M. Emerson Shannon K. Emmons Derek Ensminger Jim Everest Tricia L. Everest Arnold D. Fagin Paul S. Faulk

William B. Federman Eliot R. Feiler Ken Felker Stacey Haws Felkner Michael C. Felty Jerry R. Fent Kent Fleming Mark Folger Jerry Fraley Kent F. Frates Leamon Freeman Ronald D. Fulkerson Shawn Fulkerson B. Gore Gaines J. Brent Galyon Daniel J. Gamino Charles E. Geister III Kelly A. George DeeAnn L. Germany Tom C. Gibson Jared Giddens Gary L. Giessmann John Gile Ryan Gillett Robert H. Gilliland, Jr. Greg D. Givens Richard M. Glasgow Edward Goldman Robert Goldman Thomas Goldman John Goodman Randy Goodman Kyle Goodwin Richard J. Gore

Tony Gould Michael D. Gray Gerald P. Green Joshua C. Greenhaw Lee D. Groeneveld Mark S. Grossman Andrew Gunn J. John Hager Joel C. Hall Robert P. Hall Joe M. Hampton Melissa Handke Howard R. Haralson Joel W. Harmon Gordon A. Harness Inona Harness Chris Harper T. David Hasbrook R. Steven Haught Rick Healy Ryan W. Hearne Tim Henderson Mark Henricksen Russell Hendrickson John N. Hermes G. Rudy Hiersche Jr. Justin Hiersche David High Frank A. Hinton William H. Hoch III Dan Hoehner Arthur F. Hoge III Don G. Holladay Dan L. Holloway

Paid for by Committee to re-elect Dan Owens, District Judge David High. Co-chairman John Goodman, Co-chairman 3601 N. Classen, Suite 203, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 1140

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Michael Hoover Philip F. Horning Henry D. Hoss Thomas W. Hosty Carole Houghton Spencer Housley James F. Howell Eric Huddleston Glen D. Huff Rodney K. Hunsinger J. Roger Hurt Garvin A. Isaacs Thomas Ishmael W. Shawn Jefferson James A. Jennings Burton J. Johnson Crystal Johnson J. Logan Johnson D. Craig Johnston Robert L. Johnston Wes Johnston C. Scott Jones Jake Jones Lou Keel Brigid F. Kennedy John Kenney Ken Dale Kerr, Jr. D. Benham Kirk, Jr. Jim Kirk Nevin R. Kirkland Jennifer Kirkpatrick Michael P. Kirschner Timothy D. Kline Ken Klingenberg Stuart Knarr Terry D. Kordeliski II Paul Kouri Michael E. Krasnow Paul Antonio Lacy Jeff Laird James K. Larimore Michael F. Lauderdale Marvin Laws David W. Lee Jeff A. Lee Jim W. Lee Lance E. Leffel Andy Lester Diane Lewis William E. Liebel Heidi J. Long Robert D. Looney, Jr. John D. Loughlin Susan Loving Timothy E. Lurtz Charles Lutz Thomas Manning L. Ray Maples II Robert C. Margo Regina M. Marsh G. Stephen Martin Kevyn Gray Mattax Kieran D. Maye, Jr. Michael McAtee Jay F. McCown

Debbie McKinney Ken McKinney Toby M. McKinstry James C. McMillin Mark R. McPhail Mel McVay William C. Medley IV John W. Mee III Justin Meek Jaye Mendros Nick Merkley

Sidney A. Musser, Jr. Robert N. Naifeh, Jr. A. D. Nello Tracy Pierce Nester Drew Neville Brandon S. Nichols Elizabeth C. Nichols Heidi M. Nichols Cara S. Nicklas John C. Niemeyer Richard C. Ogden

Courtney Davis Powell G. Kay Powers Richard Propester Jim Priest Lawrence Purvis Rodney C. Ramsey Charles Austin Reams Dale Reneau Erin Renegar W. Devin Resides Christina B. Reynolds

Anton J. Rupert Kurt Rupert Anita F. Sanders Malcolm M. Savage Arthur W. Schmidt James A. Scimeca Randall Sewell Charles A. Shadid Randal Shadid Elizabeth R. Sharrock James C. Shaw

“The law applied with fairness

and impartiality assures justice and equality to everyone”

– Judge Dan Owens Steven Metheny Paul B. Middleton Richard Mildren John E. Miley Brad Miller Kevin L. Miller Earl D. Mills George Miskovsky, Jr. Mark D. Mitchell Jeffrey H. Moorman Larry A. Morgan J. Michael Morrison Clyde Muchmore Elizabeth E. Muckala Russell Mulinix Tim E. Mullen Glen Mullins Brooke S. Murphy

L. Earl Ogletree Ryan M. Oldfield Stephen L. Olson D. Michael O’Neil,Jr. Marissa T. Osenbaugh Martin G. Ozinga James H. Paddleford Howard J. Pallotta Stephen R. Palmer Richard Parr Sarah Lee Gossett Parrish Thomas Paruolo Collier Pate Beverly Pearson Harris Phillips Amy Pierce Ross A. Plourde David Pomeroy

Scott M. Rhodes Douglas A. Rice Glenn E. Ricks D. Todd Riddles Gary A. Rife Dennis C. Roberts Karolina Roberts Bruce A. Robertson Bob Robinson Richard A. Robinson Reid Robison Michael Rogalin Gary Roper Richard Rose Armando Rosell G. David Ross Geremy Rowland Mitchell D. Rozin

Douglas J. Shelton Patrick Sherry Susan Short Glenn J. (Jack) Shrader, Jr. Charles L. Sifers Jim Sill Matthew J. Sill Barry R. Simms Lee Slater Curtis L. Smith Michael E. Smith Jerry Sokolosky Cynthia L. Sparling Larry M. Spears Mark D. Spencer T. Scott Spradling Matt Standard Ainslie Stanford II

R. Gene Stanley Amy R. Steele Steve Stephens Mark K. Stonecipher Paul Streck Scott C. Sublett William H. Sullivan Sheldon Swan Kyle N. Sweet John W. Swinford, Jr. Albert L. Tait, Jr. Darren M. Tawwater Larry A. Tawwater Kevin S. Taylor Leslie Taylor David Teague James H. Thiessen Gary L. Thompson John M. Thompson Robert Thompson Don Timberlake Sarah J. Timberlake Steven L. Tolson Robert D. Tomlinson H. Trattner Paul Trimble Kaci Trojan Kevin K. Trout Jerry Tubb Mike Turpen David W. Van Meter James Vogt Alex Vosler R. Brown Wallace Shelia D. Wallace Marc Walls Kevin M. Walos Micky Walsh Hilton H. Walters Jay Walters Jim Webb Mort G. Welch William Wells Peter L. Wheeler Glenn M. White Weston White William H. Whitehill, Jr. Lyndon Whitmire John Wiggins John K. Williams Brandon P. Wilson David D. Wilson Ryan Wilson Philip C. Winters Thomas G. Wolfe Maurice G. Woods, II Michael Woodson C. Russell Woody J. Kelly Work Anne E. Zachritz Daniel K. Zorn Stephen A. Zrenda Jr. Ray E. Zschiesche

Paid for by Committee to re-elect Dan Owens, District Judge David High. Co-chairman John Goodman, Co-chairman 3601 N. Classen, Suite 203, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1141

Patrick A. Williams Criminal Defense Institute

June 24-25, 2010 Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, Catoosa, Oklahoma

Registration Fees

-OIDS Contractors -OCDLA Members

$100.00 $125.00

-Non Member/Non OIDS -Registration after June 16th

$165.00 $185.00 Contingent upon seating availability

MCLE Credit x OK - 13 Hours, includes 6 hours of Mandated Juvenile Law training and 1 hour ethics x TX - 11 Hours, includes 1 hour ethics

Location

The Hard Rock Hotel & Casino is offering a room rate of $109 for the CDI(state employees ask for your rate). This rate is good until May 25. Room reservation should be made by calling 1800-760-6700 or online at www.hardrockcasinotulsa.com. Mention the OCDLA-CDI or online use code 062410OCDL FOR MORE INFO: Email: bdp@for-the-defense.com or call the OCDLA @ 405-885-9316

Visit www.OCDLAOKLAHOMA.com to register or mail this ad with payment to: OCDLA, PO BOX 2272, OKC, OK 73101

1142

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

CRIMINAL DEFENSE INSTITUTE 2010 Presented By: THE OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE THE TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE THE OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM OKLAHOMA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Thursday, June 24 (7 credits, including ethics and 3.5 Mandated Juvenile Law Training) 8:30 – 9:00 9:00 – 9:50 10:00 – 11:20 11:20 12:45 – 1:00 1:00 – 1:50 2:00 – 3:20 3:20 – 4:10 4:10 – 5:00

Welcome- Robert Ravitz, Oklahoma County Public Defender; Joe Robertson, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System; Pete Silva, Tulsa County Public Defender; Andrea Digilio Miller, President, Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Medical Examiner/ Labs & ASCLAD; the accreditation issue Jim Drummond, Doug Parr & Mary Long Jury Selection- Robert Hirschorn, of Cathy E. Bennett & Associates, Lewisville, TX lunch Patrick A. Williams & John Adams Awards Presentation Interviewing and Cross Examining the Child Complainant- Will Korman, Boston, MA (satisfies 1credit toward mandated juvenile law training) PTSD: diagnoses & treatment of children and adults- Dr. Faust Bianco, Tulsa; Legal IssuesMary Bruehl, Oklahoma Indigent Defense; and a war veteran’s perspective- Tim “Tarzan” Wilson, Oklahoma County Public Defender. (satisfies 1.5 toward mandated juvenile law training) Effective Legal Writing- Judge Jane Wiseman, Court of Civil Appeals, Tulsa

How to Represent the Sex Crime Defendant & Still Get Invited to Cocktail Parties, Will Korman, Boston, MA (satisfies 1 credit toward mandated juvenile law training)(satisfies ethics credit) 5:00 - ? Cocktails Friday, June 25 (6 Credits, including 2.5 Mandated Juvenile Law Training) 8:30 – Drug Tests, Dog Sniffs & Forfeiture- Doug Parr & Al Hoch, Oklahoma City 9:20 9:20 – Story Telling and Jury Persuasion- Tyrone Moncriffe, Austin, TX 10:10 10:20 – Story Telling and Jury Persuasion- Tyrone Moncriffe cont’d 11:10 11:10 – Y.O Nuts and Bolts- Shena Burgess, Tulsa County Public Defender & Brian Aspen, Tulsa 12:00 (satisfies 1.5 credit toward mandated juvenile law training) 12:00 – Setting up & Growing Your Law Practice- Devin Resides & John Hunsucker, Oklahoma City 12:50 Friday, June 25 Juvenile Track (comprises remaining 1 ½ credit toward mandated juvenile law training) 1:50 – OJA Programs and Dispositional Options- Paul Sandstrom, Tulsa(satisfies ¾ toward Juvenile Training) 2:30 2:20 – Privacy Rights of Juveniles- Doris Fransein, Tulsa County District Judge, and Tim Laughlin, 3:20 Oklahoma Indigent Defense(satisfies ¾ toward Juvenile Training) Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1143

The OBA Family Law Section Presents: FAMILY LAW BY THE NUMBERS

The OBA Family Law Section is a Presumptive Oklahoma MCLE Provider. This course has been approved by the Oklahoma Bar Association Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Commission for 6 hours of mandatory CLE Credit and 0 hours Ethics.

DATES & Tulsa Oklahoma City LOCATIONS: Thursday, M ay 20, 2010 Friday, M ay 21, 2010 OSU - Tulsa Conference Center, Room 106 Credit Union House 700 North Greenwood Avenue 631 E. Hill Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Cost: $95.00 if received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 14, 2010. $110.00 if received after May 14, 2010. Cost of registration includes materials, a calculator and lunch. A $25 fee will be charged for cancellations made within four full business days of the seminar date.

Cancellations, refunds, or transfers will not be accepted on or after the seminar date. Please return form to confirm attendance.

Program Planner/Moderator: Lori A. Pirraglia, Oklahoma City, OK TULSA Thursday, M ay 20, 2010

OKLAHOM A CITY Friday, M ay 21, 2010

8:30 a.m.

Registration

8:30 a.m.

Registration

9:00 a.m.

Calculating Support for the Family Rees T. Evans, Esq.

9:00 a.m.

Calculating Support for the Family Rees T. Evans, Esq.

9:50 a.m.

Break

9:50 a.m.

Break

10:00 a.m.

Business Valuations Fair Market Value v. Investment Value- W hat is the Real Value?

Jim Hinkle, CPA/ABV/CVA

10:00a.m.

Business Valuations Fair Market Value v. Investment Value- W hat is the Real Value?

Jim Hinkle, CPA/ABV/CVA

10:50 a.m.

W riting a QDRO Friendly Decree Tom M. Cummins, CPA

10:50a.m.

W riting a QDRO Friendly Decree Tom M. Cummins, CPA

11:40 a.m.

Lunch (Included with Registration Fee)

11:40a.m.

Lunch (Included with Registration Fee)

12:10 p.m.

Medical Support and the Child Support Guidelines Amy Wilson, Esq., Appellate Counsel for OCSS

12:10p.m.

Medical Support and the Child Support Guidelines Amy Wilson, Esq., Appellate Counsel for OCSS

1:00 p.m.

Break

1:00 p.m.

Break

1:10 p.m.

Bankruptcy and Divorce Sam G. Bratton II, Esq. Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, LLP

1:10 p.m.

Bankruptcy and Divorce Sam G. Bratton II, Esq. Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, LLP

2:00 p.m.

Foreclosure and Divorce Kenneth E. Wagner, Esq. & Marcus N. Ratcliff, Esq. of Latham, Wagner, Steele, & Lehman, P.C.

2:00 p.m.

Foreclosure and Divorce Kenneth E. Wagner, Esq. & Marcus N. Ratcliff, Esq. of Latham, Wagner, Steele, & Lehman, P.C.

2:50 p.m.

Adjourn

2:50 p.m.

Adjourn

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Return Form and check payable to OBA Family Law Section to: Lori A. Pirraglia, 6640 Avondale Dr., Ste. 208, Okla. City, OK 73116, fax: 405-843-5581. Questions: Contact Lori Pirraglia at 405-843-3055 or e-mail ebruening@flspc.com or lpirraglia@flspc.com ☐ I am an Oklahoma Appellate or District Court Judge. My enrollment is FREE, but pre-registration is requested. ___________________________________________ _________________________________________ Name (Please print or type) OBA # (FOR CLE CREDIT) ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ Street Address City, State, Zip ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ Telephone Facsimile (include area code) ___________________________________________ ☐Tulsa May 20, 2010

☐Oklahoma City May 21, 2010

Email_______________________________________ For ☐ Visa or ☐ MasterCard (Processed through OBA)

Credit Card #__________________________________

Exp. Date__________________

Authorized Signature____________________________

1144

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

A g e n d a

Sovereignty Symposium 2010 As Long as the Grass Grows and the Rivers Flow June 2 – June 3, 2010

Skirvin - Hilton Hotel, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Presented by The Oklahoma Supreme Court • The Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission • The Indian Law Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association • The Oklahoma Arts Council • The University of Tulsa College of Law • The University of Oklahoma College of Law • Oklahoma City University School of Law and The Sovereignty Symposium, Inc. 16 hours of CLE credit for lawyers will be awarded, including 1 hour of ethics.

NOTE: Please be aware that each state has its own rules and regulations, including the definition of “CLE”; therefore, certain programs may not receive credit in some states.

The Sovereignty Symposium was established to provide a forum in which ideas concerning common legal issues could be exchanged in a scholarly, non-adversarial environment. The Supreme Court espouses no view on any of the issues, and the positions taken by the participants are not endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 a.m. 4.5 CLE credits / 1 ethics included p.m. 3 CLE credits / 0 ethics included

Wednesday Morning: 7:30 – 4:30...................................... Registration 8:00 – 8:30...................................Complimentary Continental Breakfast

Honorable Kelly Haney, Seminole, Oklahoma.

________

8:30 – 5:30.............................................PANEL B: ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENTS CO-MODERATORS:

10:30 – 10:45 ..........................Morning Coffee/ Tea Break

Dr. James C. Collard, Director of Planning and Economic Development, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Shawnee, Oklahoma.

9:30 – 12:00 ................................... PANEL A: THE YEAR OF THE HORSE

Kay Bills, (Osage), President and Founder, Strategic Native Partnerships (SNAP), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

________

MODERATOR: Honorable Tom Colbert, Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Madeleine Pickens, Help Save America’s Wild Horses, Dallas, Texas.

Honorable Gregory E. Pyle, Chief, Choctaw Nation, Durant, Oklahoma.

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Honorable Natalie Shirley, Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Honorable John “Rocky” Barrett, Chairman, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Honorable Shane Jett, Oklahoma House of Representatives, Tecumseh, Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1145

Don Chapman, (Mohegan), Côqayohômuwôk, Senior Advisor on Native American Affairs, Office of the Secretary, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.

Jeff Finkle, President and CEO, International Economic Development Council, Washington, D.C. Nola Miyasaki, Center for Innovation and Economic Development, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Vincent G. Logan, The Nations Group, LLC, New York, New York.

________

8:30– 12:00........................................... PANEL C: IN LAND WE TRUST MODERATOR: Honorable Deborah Barnes, Judge, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

CO-MODERATOR: Leah Harjo-Ware To be Named, USDOI, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, “Maximizing Income from the Land Base for Trust Beneficiaries.”

Alan Woodcock, Esq., Field Solicitor, USDOI, Tulsa, Oklahoma, “Putting Land into Trust post Carcieri v. Salazar and the Legislative Fix.” G. William Rice, (United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians) Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa, College of Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma, “Alternate Ways to Designate Indian Lands.”

M. Alexander Pearl, Esq., Kilpatrick, Stockton, Washington, D.C., “Struggling to Protect the Land Base — the Tribal Trust Cases.”

Angie Hamilton, (Kiowa), Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Aberdeen, South Dakota, “Passing Guardianship over the Land Base — Federal and Tribal Probate Codes.”

________

8:30 – 12:30 .................................. PANEL D: GAMING COMPACTS MODERATOR: Mr. Cal Hobson, Executive Director of Operations, University Outreach, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

1146

Honorable Scott Meacham, Oklahoma State Treasurer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Scott Wells, President and General Manager, Remington Park, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Bob Rabon, Esq., (Chickasaw), Rabon, Wolf and Rabon, Hugo, Oklahoma.

Kirke Kickingbird, Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

________

8:30 – 5:30...................................... PANEL E: TRIBAL AND STATE JUDICIAL COLLABORATION: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES MODERATOR: Honorable Phillip Lujan, Presiding Judge, Citizen Potawatomi Nation Tribal Court, Shawnee, Oklahoma.

SESSION ONE: Issues In Juvenile/deprived And Neglect Cases CO-MODERATOR: Honorable Darrell Dowty, Project Director, American Indian Resource Center, Institute for Native Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Tribal Court GrantTraces; Judge, Judicial Appeals Tribunal, Cherokee Nation; Tribal Court Judge, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

Honorable Barry Denny, Associate District Judge, Delaware County, Jay, Oklahoma.

Honorable Elizabeth Brown, Associate District Judge, Adair County, Stillwell, Oklahoma.

Steve Hager, Esq., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Honorable Korey Wawassuck, Associate Judge, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Case Lake, Minnesota.

SESSION TWO: Ethics Honorable John F. Reif, Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Skiatook, Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

SESSION THREE: Uniformity In Judgments And Sentences CO-MODERATOR: Honorable Stacy Leeds, Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence, Kansas.

Trent Shores, Assistant United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Honorable Dianne Barker Harold, Associate District Judge, Pawnee Nation, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma.

Honorable John E. Parris, Sand Springs, Oklahoma.

Honorable Bret Burns, District Attorney, District Six, Duncan, Oklahoma.

SESSION FOUR: Historical Underpinnings Of Tribal Laws Dr. Marcia Haag, Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, “The Journal of Peter Pitchlynn, 1826-1828.”

Henry Willis, (Choctaw), Community Teacher and Consultant for the Language Program, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma, “The Journal of Peter Pitchlynn, 1826-1828.”

Invocation: Honorable Lawrence Hart (Cheyenne), Traditional Cheyenne Peace Chief, Clinton, Oklahoma.

Welcome: Chief Justice James Edmondson, Chief Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Welcome: Honorable Bill Follis, Chairman, Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Welcome: Allen M. Smallwood, President, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Welcome: Honorable Jari Askins, Lieutenant Governor, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Address: Honorable Tom Cole, United States House of Representatives, Moore, Oklahoma.

Closing Prayer: The Right Reverend William C. Wantland (Seminole), Seminole, Oklahoma.

3:30 – 3:45 ............................ Tea/Cookie Break for all Panels

________

Wednesday Afternoon: 1:15 – 2:30 .................. OPENING CEREMONY AND KEYNOTE ADDRESS Camp Call: Honorable Lawrence Hart (Cheyenne), Traditional Cheyenne Peace Chief, Clinton, Oklahoma.

Master of Ceremonies — Honorable Rudolph Hargrave, Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma.

Presentation of Flags by Tribal Leaders.

Honor Guards: Vietnam Era Veterans Intertribal Association, Kiowa Black Leggings.

Drum: Southern Nation Singers.

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

2:30 – 5:30 ............................................PANEL A: ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENTS [A Continuation of the Morning Panel] CO-MODERATORS: Dr. James C. Collard, Director of Planning and Economic Development, Citizen Pottawatomi Nation, Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Ms. Kay Bills, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Dr. Gavin Clarkson, Associate Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas, “The Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on Native American Tribes.”

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1147

Alvin Harrell, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Giovanna Gismondi, Adjunct Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, Oklahoma.

Gary Pitchlynn, Esq., (Choctaw), Pitchlynn and Williams, Norman, Oklahoma.

Freddy Peccereli: Guatemalan forensic anthropologist.

Ken Bellmard, Esq. (Kaw), Rubenstein, McCormick and Pitts, Edmond, Oklahoma.

________

2:30 – 5:30 ............................................PANEL B: MAKING REAL ESTATE INTERESTS WORK IN INDIAN COUNTRY MODERATOR: Frederick H. Miller, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, Oklahoma.

Dale Higer, Esq., Uniform Law Commissioner, Chair of Uniform Law Commission Study Committee on Model Tribal Legislation on Collateralization and Probate Transfer of Interests in Real Property, Boise, Idaho.

David English, Law Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri

Jose Sosof, Maya victim of a massacre in Santiago Atitlan.

Rosalina Tuccoy, National Reparations Commission, Guatemala.

Harvey Pratt, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

________

2:30 –5:30 .............................................PANEL E: KEEPING TRIBAL COMMUNITIES SAFE — INFORMATION SHARING FOR TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, HOMELAND SECURITY AND DISASTER RESPONSE AGENCIES MODERATOR: Christopher Chaney, Deputy Director, Office of Tribal Justice, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Joe LaPorte, Fellow, National Counter Terrorism Center, Washington, D.C.

Douglas Nash, Esq., Institute for Indian Estate Planning and Probate, Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington

Tammy Hughes, Crime Analyst, Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police, Ada, Oklahoma.

2:30 – 5:30............................................ PANEL C: TRIBAL AND STATE JUDICIAL COLLABORATION: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, COMMON CONCERNS AND THE PATH TO SOLUTIONS

————————

________

[A Continuation of the Morning Panel]

________

Kim Carter, Fusion Center Coordinator, Oklahoma Information Fusion Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Thursday, June 3, 2010 a.m. 4.5 CLE credits / 0 ethics included p.m. 4 CLE credits / 0 ethics included

Thursday Morning:

2:30 – 5:30 ...........................................PANEL D: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND JUSTICE IN GUATEMALA: THE MAYAN EXPERIENCE MODERATOR: Honorable Marian P. Opala, Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

7:30 – 4:30.......................................Registration 8:00 – 8:30...................................Complimentary Continental Breakfast 10:30 – 10:45 ..........................Morning Coffee/ Tea Break

Clyde Snow, Ph.D, Forensic Anthropologist, Norman, Oklahoma.

1148

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

________ 8:30 – 12:00 ..........................................PANEL A: INDIAN GAMING: A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE MODERATOR: Matthew Morgan, Esq., Chickasaw Nation Gaming Commissioner, Ada, Oklahoma.

Jeff Keel, Esq., General Counsel for the Chickasaw Nation Gaming Commission, Ada, Oklahoma.

Elizabeth Homer, Esq., (Osage) Homer Law, Chartered, Washington, D.C. Steffani Cochran, Esq., Associate Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington D.C. Joe Valandra, former Chief of Staff, National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington D.C. Jerome L. “Jerry” Levine, Esq., Holland and Knight, Los Angeles, California.

Michael Anderson, Esq., Anderson, Tuell, Washington, D.C.

________ 8:30 – 12:30 ..........................................PANEL B: SESSION ONE: A UNITED FORCE FOR HEALTH: THE TRIBES AND MEDICAL RESEARCH MODERATOR: Dr. Kenneth Copeland, Jonas Professor and Chief, Section of Pediatric Diabetes/Endocrinology, University of Oklahoma Medical School, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Mickey Peercy, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma.

Carl Harper, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnership, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland.

Terry Schmidt, Director, Contract Health Services, Oklahoma City Area Office, Indian Health Service, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Mickey Peercy, Executive Director of Health Services, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma.

________

8:30 – 12:00 ......................................... PANEL C: TRIBAL TRANSIT — PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR INDIAN COUNTRY MODERATOR: Tim Gatz, Director of Capital Programs, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Jay Adams, Director for Tribal Coordination, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Angie Gilliam, Transit Director, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma.

Debbie McGlasson, Transit Director, Pelivan Transit and the 9 NE Tribes of Oklahoma.

Ken LaRue, Transit Division Manger, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

________

SESSION TWO: FINANCING HEALTH CARE: CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES IN THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM MODERATOR: P. Benjamin Smith, M.A., Deputy Director, Office of Tribal SelfGovernance, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland.

Hankie Ortiz, Esq., Director, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland.

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Michael D. Mahsetky, Esq., Director, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland.

8:30 – 12:00 .........................................PANEL D: CHILDREN’S ISSUES MODERATOR: Honorable Howard Hendrick, Esq., Director, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Honorable Tom Walker (Wyandotte/ Cherokee), District Judge, Ardmore, Oklahoma, “The Long View: A History of and Progress for Indian Children involved with Child Welfare and the role of ICWA.”

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1149

Ben Loring, Assistant District Attorney, Member, Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth, Miami, Oklahoma, “The Biggest Successes and the Biggest Challenges for Children.”

Honorable Gary Miller, District Judge, El Reno, Oklahoma, “What I Learned in the Executive Branch.”

Ann Davis, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Billye Leitka, Indian Child Welfare Director for the Seminole Nation and Co-Chair of the Tribal State Collaboration Workgroup, “Tribal Relations and OKDHS: Working Together for Indian Children.

Sue D. Tate, M.S., Alternative Dispute Mediation Director and Court Improvement Coordinator, Administrative Office of the Courts Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Howard Hendrick, Esq., Director, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, “Wrapup: Issues Persons Would Like to Consider Together to Improve the Future for Indian Children.”

________

8:30 – 12:00 .......................................... PANEL F: WATER LAW MODERATOR: Honorable Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Stephen Greetham, Esq., Special Counsel, Water and Natural Resources, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma.

Judith Royster, Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Honorable J. D. Strong, Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Dr. Will Focht, Director,The Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Susan Work, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

1150

Honorable Cheryl McClellan, Second Chief, Sac and Fox Nation, Stroud, Oklahoma.

Thursday Afternoon: 3:30 – 3:45 ............................ Tea/Cookie Break for all Panels

________

1:30 – 5:00 ............................................Panel A: GAMING MODERATOR: Jess Green, Esq., (Chickasaw), Ada, Oklahoma.

Matthew Morgan, Esq., Chickasaw Nation Gaming Commissioner, Ada, Oklahoma.

Gary Pitchlynn, Esq. (Choctaw), Pitchlynn and Williams PLLC, Norman, Oklahoma.

Elizabeth L. Homer, Esq. (Osage), Homer Law Firm, Washington, D.C. Graydon Dean Luthey, Jr., Hall, Estill, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Honorable Steffani Cochran, National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, D.C. Mark Van Norman, (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota), Executive Director, National Indian Gaming Association, Washington, D.C. Ernie Stevens, Jr., National Indian Gaming Association, Washington, D.C. D. Michael McBride III, Esq. Crowe and Dunlevy, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

________

1:30 – 5:00.............................................PANEL B: CRIMINAL LAW MODERATOR: Honorable Sanford C. Coats, Esq., United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Arvo Mikkanen, Esq. (Kiowa/Comanche), Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, “CrossDeputization of State, Federal and Tribal Law Enforcement.”

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Don Gifford, Esq., (Cherokee), Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, “Developments in Sex Offender Registration Efforts.”

Shannon Henson, Esq., and Dean Burris, Esq., Assistant United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee, Oklahoma, “Project Safe Neighborhood Initiatives.”

R. Trent Shores, Esq., (Choctaw) and Clint Johnson, Esq., Assistant United States Attorneys, for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, “White Collar Crimes and Public Corruption.”

________

1:30 – 5:00............................................ PANEL C: NATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATION AND SOVEREIGNTY MODERATOR: G. William Rice, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa, College of Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Gloria Valencia-Weber, University of New Mexico School of Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Stacy Leeds, Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence, Kansas.

Jonodev Chaudhuri, Esq., The Chaudhuri Law Office, Tempe, Arizona.

Dr. Henrietta Mann, President, Cheyenne/Arapahoe Tribal College, Weatherford, Oklahoma.

Dr. Jerry C. Bread, Sr., Native American Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Dr. Richard Allen, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

Dr. Tom Holton, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona.

Dr. Hugh Foley, Rogers State University, Claremore, Oklahoma.

Dr. Joe Watkins, Director, NAS, University of Oklahoma.

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

________ 1:30 – 5:00............................................PANEL D: WATER LAW [A Continuation of the Morning Panel] MODERATOR: Lindsay Robertson, Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law. John E. Echohawk, Esq., Director, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colorado.

Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee Nation Tribal Council, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

1:30 – 5:00.............................................PANEL E: THE FIRST AMERICANS & THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS HUMAN RIGHTS ROUND TABLE IN CELEBRATION OF THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. CYNTHIA PRICE COHEN MODERATOR: Keith D. Nunes, Scholar-in-Residence, Holocaust, Genocide & Human Rights, Kean University.

James Anaya, James J. Lenoir Professor of Human Rights Law and Policy, The University of Arizona College of Law, Tucson, Arizona.

Christina M. Cerna, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University; Principal Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C. Dr José Martínez Cobo, United Nations Special Rapporteur to the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, New York, New York.

Dr. Kenneth Dollarhide, Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kean University, Union, New Jersey.

Ellen L. Lutz, Esq., M.A. Executive Director, Cultural Survival, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Winston Nagan, FSRA, Samuel Dell Research Scholar, Professor of Law, Affiliate Anthropology Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1151

Ánde Somby, traditional Sami Joik Artist, Research Scholar Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Buolbmat, Norway.

Siegfried Wiessner, Professor of Law and Director, St. Thomas University Intercultural Human Rights LLM Program, Miami, Florida.

The Sovereignty Symposium registration and hotel information are available at

www.thesovereigntysymposium.com

1152

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

New Attorneys Take Oath Board of Bar Examiners Chairperson Tom A. Frailey of Chickasha announces that 65 applicants who took the Oklahoma Bar Examination on February 23-24, 2010 were admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association on Thursday, April 22, 2010. Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice James E. Edmondson administered the Oath of Attorney to the candidates at a swearing-in ceremony at the State Capitol. A total of 95 applicants took the examination.

Other members of the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners are Peggy B. Cunningham, Vice-Chairperson, Yukon; Monte Brown, McAlester; Stephanie C. Jones, Clinton; Bryan Morris, Ada; Loretta F. Radford, Tulsa; Donna L. Smith, Miami; Scott E. Williams, Oklahoma City; and J. Ron Wright, Muskogee.

New admittees are: Suma Ananthaswamy Jennifer Hope Barrett Jessica Noel Battson Rebecca Davis Bauer Amy Blom Wilkes Shanna Dee Bokoff Bradley E. Bowlby Mosemarie Dora Boyd Saundra Ann Burrus Gregory Pierre Chansolme Wesley James Cherry Brett Alan Claar Nicholas Olsen Codding Dustin Lane Compton Scott Lee Cravens Malori Riah Dahmen Christin Murphy Donovan Adam Lawrence Finfrock Michele A. Freeman Matthew Ryan Gile Kendra Daishon Gill Adam D. Green

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Elijah Jacob Lancaster Haahr Marcus Lorrell Haberichter David K. Hale Nathan Hugh Harper Andrew Ashby Cornell Harrell Andrew Ralph Harroz Heath Robert Hasenbeck Nathan Drew Hendrickson Barbara Ellen Hill Amanda Vernell Hopson Roger Cliffton Johns Sean Vincent Johnson Melody J. Jones Kristina Nicole Kirkpatrick Richard Lamont Koller Christine Marie Larson James Eric Lemon Andrew Joseph Maloney Lori Christine Barker McInnes Laura Elizabeth Miller Andrea Monachella

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Austin Tyler Murrey Ryan Curtis Mushrush Audrey Jean Myers John Richard Olson Julie Owen Shiny Rachel Pappy Christopher Eugene Phillips Stephanie Marie Powers Stacy Suby Ramdas Craig Marshall Regens Peary Livingston Robertson Chase Harrison Schnebel Heidi Leigh Shadid Elizabeth Cynita Thomas Christopher David Tyler Gigit Tranae Underwood Samuel Ryan Vanover Seth Grant Von Tungeln Kathleen Wendlocher Wallace Benjamin David Waters Christina Louise Whitehurst Glen L. Work

1153

THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION DISTRICT COURT

“DOING BUSINESS IN INDIAN COUNTRY” Eight Years of Quality CLE May 20th and 21st

Moderators:

River Spirit Event Center Tulsa, Oklahoma

Shelly Grunsted, BA, JD, LL.M, Professor - University of Oklahoma Patrick E. Moore, BBA, JD, LL.M, Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court Judge

Some of the Many Faculty members include: Representative – National Indian Gaming Commission Montie Deer – Past Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission Judith V. Royster, JD, Professor of Law, University of Tulsa Bill Bettenberg, JD, Homer Law LLP and Past Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior Dr. Alan Meister – Nathan and Associates, Inc., Irvine California John Williams, JD-Connors and Winters LLP, Tulsa Oklahoma Richard Monette, JD – Professor -University of Wisconsin Kathleen Smith, JD - Lecturer, University of Oklahoma Klint Cowen, JD – Hobbs, Staus, Dean & Walker LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Shannon Prescott, JD – Glendening, McKenna, Prescott, & Robertson

COURSE OUTLINE DAY ONE May 20th, 2010 8:30

- Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:40

- Ceremonial Opening Exercises

8:50

- Welcome and Introduction by Patrick Moore, Comments

9:00

- Jurisdiction in Indian Country – Klint Cowen, Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker

10:00 - Break 10:10 - Trust Lands, Business Opportunities – Professor Royster 11:00 - Tribal Land Acquisitions – Federal Law updates – Professor Royster 11:50 - Lunch – Visions Buffett 1:15

- Water law – Economic Opportunities – Professor Richard Monette

2:20

- Break

2:30

- Ethical Considerations of Practicing Law in Indian Country Professor Kathleen Smith

3:30

- Collision of Tribal and Corporate Cultures –Law vs. Fiction– John Williams, Connors and Winters, LLP

4:30

- Question and Answer Session and Evaluations of Day 1 – All Faculty and Speakers

5:00

- Supreme Court Swearing in Ceremony-Visions Buffett

5:30

- Buffett Dinner Provided at the River Spirit Casino Buffett in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Bar Association

1154

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

COURSE OUTLINE DAY TWO May 21st, 2010 8:50

- Opening Remarks - Judge Patrick E. Moore

9:00

- Tribal Gaming – “Best Interest of the Tribe?” 2010 Update –Dr. Alan Meister

10:00

- Break

10:05

- “Unfulfilled Promise of Self-Regulation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

10:55

- Break

11:00

- “Unfilled Promises” Cont’d – Bill Bettenberg, Homer Law, Washington DC

12:00

- Lunch – Visions Buffett

1:30

- National Indian Gaming Developments –National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)

2:20

- Break

2:30

- Federal Tribal Relations –Montie Deer, Judge and Past Commissioner, NIGC

3:20

- State and Federal Law Updates in regards to Indian Country – Shannon Prescott

4:30

- Closing Comments and Evaluations of Day 2

Adjourn

Tuition Structure: $200 MCN Bar Association Members – Early Bird (by May 7th 2010) $225 Non-MCN Bar Association Members – Early Bird (by May 7th 2010) Walk-in/Late Registration - $250 (if space available) Cancellations will be accepted at any time prior to seminar date, however, a cancellation fee of $50.00 will be charged.

13* Hours of CLE Credit with 1 hour of ETHICS REGISTRATION FORM DOING BUSINESS IN INDIAN COUNTRY-2010 Name_________________________________________________________________________ Firm/Organization_______________________________________________________________ Address________________________________________________________________________ City____________________________ State___________________ Zip____________________ OBA Member ___Yes ___No OBA Bar # ______ E-Mail________________________________ Make Check payable to Muscogee (Creek) District Court - CLE Program and mail entire page to: Muscogee (Creek) District Court, P.O. Box 652, Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447 *Applied for Questions contact the District Court @ 918.758.1400 or mvskoke@aol.com

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1155

Who: What: Where: When: Why:

Members of the Tenth Circuit Bench and Bar 2010 Tenth Circuit Bench & Bar Conference The Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Colorado August 26 - 28, 2010 Education, Collegiality, Networking, and CLEs

Mark your calendars and plan on attending this very exciting 2010 Tenth Circuit Bench & Bar Conference! Distinguished guests will include Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor; Lord Igor Judge, Chief Justice of England and Wales; and Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, Canadian Supreme Court.

Conference registration and hotel reservations open early May. Visit the Conference website at: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/judconf/ to register. Please note the room block fills up fast. In the meantime, if you have any questions, call the Judicial Resources team at 303.355.2067 or e-mail them at CA10_JudicialConference @ca10.uscourts.gov.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF layton m. perry, SCBD #5591 TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 11.3(b), Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S., Ch. 1, App. 1-A, that a hearing will be held to determine if Layton M. Perry should be reinstated to active membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Any person desiring to be heard in opposition to or in support of the petition may appear before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal at the Oklahoma Bar Center at 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 3, 2010. Any person wishing to appear should contact Gina Hendryx, General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152, telephone (405) 416-7007, no less than five (5) days prior to the hearing.

1156

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TRIBUNAL

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Disposition of Cases Other Than by Published Opinion COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Wednesday, April 21, 2010 F-2009-644 — Appellant, Phillip Washington Chronister, was tried in a non-jury trial in the District Court of Washington County, Case Number CF-2008-486, and convicted of Lewd Acts With a Child Under 16. He was sentenced to twenty five (25) years imprisonment with all but the first fifteen (15) years suspended.

Appellant now appeals his conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED. Opinion by: Lumpkin, J.; C. Johnson, P.J., concur; A. Johnson, V.P.J., concur; Lewis, J., concur.

imprisonment on each count, plus a $30,000 fine on Count 2 and a $20,000 fine on Count 2.

The trial court sentenced accordingly and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. From this judgment and sentence Bryant Laquinn Hall has perfected his appeal. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Opinion by: A. Johnson, V.P.J.; C. Johnson, P.J., concurs; Lumpkin, J., concurs; Lewis, J., concurs in results.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

M-2008-1234 — Thomas Richard O’Carroll, Appellant, appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence, imposed after a nonjury trial before the Honorable William J. Manger, Municipal Judge, in Case No. 053853769 in the Municipal Court of Record of the City of Oklahoma City. Appellant was convicted of Disorderly Conduct, and was sentenced to a One Hundred Dollar ($100.00) fine. AFFIRMED. Opinion by: Per Curiam; C. Johnson, P.J., concur; A. Johnson, V.P.J., concur; Lumpkin, J., concur; Lewis, J., concur.

RE-2008-1019 — Charles Edward Jackson, Appellant, entered a plea of guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Washington County District Court Case No. CF-1999-586. Jackson was sentenced to ten years incarceration, with all but two years suspended. Jackson’s suspended sentence was subsequently revoked in full by the Honorable Curtis L. DeLapp, District Judge. From this order of revocation, Jackson has perfected his appeal. The District Court’s order revoking Jackson’s suspended sentence in full is AFFIRMED. Opinion by Johnson, C., P.J.; A. Johnson, V.P.J., concur; Lumpkin, J., concur; Lewis, J., concur.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Friday, April 30, 2010

F-2009-470 — Vanessa Rachelle McCleskey, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery (felony) in Case No. CF-2008-216A, in the District Court of McCurtain County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment eight (8) months imprisonment in county jail.

The trial court sentenced accordingly. From this judgment and sentence Vanessa Rachelle McCleskey has perfected her appeal. AFFIRMED. Opinion by: Chapel, J.; C. Johnson, P.J., Concur; A. Johnson, V.P.J., Concur; Lumpkin, J., Concur in Results; Lewis, J., Concur.

F-2009-472 — Sherman Omar Galberth, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crime of Burglary in the First Degree, After Two Prior Felony Convictions, in Case No. CF-2008-181 in the District Court of Caddo County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment twenty years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced accordingly. From this judgment and sentence Sherman Omar Galberth has perfected his appeal. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Opinion by: A. Johnson, V.P.J.; C. Johnson, P.J., concurs; Lumpkin, J., concurs; Lewis, J., concurs in results.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

F-2008-1059 — Bryant Laquinn Hall, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crimes of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2008-180B in the District Court of Carter County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment fifteen years Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

F-2009-292 — Jimmy Dwayne Robinson, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crime of Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in Case No. CF-20076314, in the District Court of Tulsa County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recom-

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1157

mended as punishment thirty years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine. The trial court sentenced accordingly. From this judgment and sentence Jimmy Dwayne Robinson has perfected his appeal. AFFIRMED. Opinion by: C. Johnson, P.J.; A. Johnson, V.P.J., Concur; Lumpkin, J., Concur in Result; Lewis, J., Concur.

F-2009-291 — Quinton Lee Amey, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crimes of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, After Two or More Prior Convictions (Count I) and Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of a Felony (Count II), in Case No. CF-2008-4299 in the District Court of Tulsa County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment thirty-five years imprisonment on Count I and fifteen years imprisonment on Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, ordering the sentences be served consecutively.

From this judgment and sentence QUINTON LEE AMEY has perfected his appeal. The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s request for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. Opinion by: C. Johnson, P.J.; A. Johnson, V.P.J., Concur; Lumpkin, J., Concur in Result; Lewis, J., Concur.

F-2009-332 — Ralph Taitingfong, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crimes of Shooting With Intent to Kill (Count I), Feloniously Pointing Firearm (Counts II and IV) all after former conviction of two or more felonies, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony (Count V), after former conviction of a felony in Case No. CF-2008-970, in the District Court of Tulsa County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment life imprisonment on Count I, twenty (20) years imprisonment on each of Counts II and IV, and ten (10) years imprisonment on Count V with all sentences to run consecutively. The trial court sentenced accordingly. From this judgment and sentence Ralph Taitingfong has perfected his appeal. AFFIRMED. Opinion by: PER CURIAM; C. Johnson, P.J., Concur; A. Johnson, V.P.J., Concur; Lumpkin, J., Concur in Results; Lewis, J., Concur in Results.

F-2009-152 — Angelo Solis, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crime of Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in Case No. CF-2008-3020 in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended as punishment fifteen years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced accordingly. From this judgment and sentence Angelo Solis has perfected his appeal.

1158

AFFIRMED. Opinion by: C. Johnson, P.J.; A. Johnson, V.P.J., Concur; Lumpkin, J., Concur; Lewis J., Concur.

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (Division No. 1) Friday, April 23, 2010 107,119 — Ray Chowning, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Julita Chowning, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rodney Sparkman, Trial Judge. This is the second appeal in this divorce case. In the first appeal (105,033), Appellant (Wife) sought reversal of certain determinations in the decree of dissolution. In the first appeal, this Court held the trial court had abused its discretion in the division of marital property because “the record was insufficient to provide the means for determining an equitable disposition of the property.” Moreover, this Court could not determine whether Wife needed support alimony or whether Appellee (Husband) had the ability to pay. The matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to determine the values of the relevant marital property, enter an equitable division, and reconsider Wife’s request for support alimony. On remand, the trial court found it previously addressed all issues raised by the appeal and declined to enter any additional orders. Wife appeals this Journal Entry.

The trial court’s decision is now included in the record and contains the figures and findings which support its orders in the divorce decree.

However, we hold the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider equitable division of the “net value” in the marital residence.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wife’s request for support alimony. This matter is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED with directions to formulate a payment plan to effectuate the judgment. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion by Hansen, J.; Buettner, P.J., and Hetherington, J., concur.

107,124 — Jerry Watashe, Petitioner, vs.

Creek Nation Casino, Hudson Insurance Group, and The Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Proceeding to Review an Order of The Workers’ Compensation Court.

Honorable Eric W. Quandt, Trial Judge. Petitioner Jerry Watashe seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court which dismissed Watashe’s claim for compensation based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Watashe sought compensation for an injury

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

incurred in his employment with Respondent Creek Nation Casino (Employer). We sustain.

SUSTAINED. Opinion by Buettner, P.J.; Hetherington, J., concurs, and Hansen, J., dissents.

107,819 — John McClung, Petitioner, vs.

Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co, Zurich American Insurance Co., and The Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Proceeding to Review an Order of a Three-Judge Panel of The Workers’ Compensation Court. Petitioner/ Employee John McClung (McClung) was injured during his employment as a crane operator with Respondent/Employer Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. (Barnhart Crane and Rigging) August 6, 2008. He continued working light duty until the job ended December 12, 2008. McClung sought temporary total disability benefits for a period after his layoff, but the Workers’ Compensation Court denied his request. McClung appealed and a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court affirmed. SUSTAINED. Opinion by Buettner, P.J.; Hansen, J., and Hetherington, J., concur.

(Division No. 2) Wednesday, April 21, 2010 107,612 — Patrick Greer, Petitioner, v. Shaw Group, Inc., Zurich American Insurance Co., and The Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Review of an Order of a threejudge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court, Hon. Cherri Farrar, Trial Judge. Claimant appeals the court en banc’s determination that Employer is to provide him vocational rehabilitation services. Claimant contends this was an error because he is permanently and totally disabled and unable to work. We find there is competent evidence to support the three-judge panel’s order. Claimant also asserts the court en banc erred by failing to order permanent total disability (PTD) benefits pursuant to 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 22 from the date Claimant reached maximum medical improvement until the date § 16(D) benefits are to commence.

We disagree with Claimant. The court en banc correctly reserved the issue of PTD for future hearing pursuant to 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 16(A). SUSTAINED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by Barnes, J.; Wiseman, C.J., and Fischer, P.J., concur.

105,910 (cons. w/105,909) — Annette K. Buckun, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. David R. Buckun, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Hon. Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. The trial court found Appellant guilty of indirect contempt of court and Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

sentenced him to six months in jail for his willful failure to hold Appellee harmless for $7,107.99, representing the amount Appellee paid to the Oklahoma Tax Commission for taxes owed by a business awarded to Appellant as his separate property in their divorce decree. In a contempt proceeding, questions of fact are not reviewed. Only questions of law are reviewed and are subject to de novo review.

Kerr v. Clary, 2001 OK 90, 37 P.3d 841. On appeal, Appellant contends the divorce decree lacked specificity as to his hold harmless obligations, that his due process rights were violated, laches, and that the judgment of contempt was erroneous. Appellant also contends Appellee should have been found guilty of contempt. Upon review of the record on appeal and the applicable law, we reject Appellant’s arguments and affirm the trial court’s judgments. Appellee included a motion for appealrelated attorney fees in her brief on appeal.

Pursuant to 43 O.S. Supp. 2003 § 110(E) and the overriding equitable considerations, we grant the motion and remand to the trial court with instructions to determine a reasonable amount of appeal-related attorney fees. 12 O.S. Supp.

2004 § 696.4(C). JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPEAL-RELATED ATTORNEY FEES GRANTED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by Barnes, J.; Wiseman, C.J., and Fischer, P.J., concur.

Friday, April 23, 2010 107,341 — Arturo Medina, Petitioner, v. Juan Martinez d/b/a Aztec Custom Framing, Estate Properties Development, LLC, and the Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Appeal from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court, Hon. William R. Foster, Trial Judge, dismissing general contractor Estate Properties Development, LLC, as a party after determining it was not responsible for the injuries sustained by Claimant. Claimant was injured while working for Aztec Custom Framing, a subcontractor of Estate. Before Aztec was allowed to perform work for Estate, Estate required Aztec to provide a certificate of workers’ compensation insurance coverage. After Claimant’s injury, the certificate Aztec provided, which appeared valid on its face, was discovered to be invalid. Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim against Aztec, but later named Estate as a party. Estate requested that it be dismissed and the trial court granted that request. Title 85 O.S. Supp. 2009 § 11(B)(2) provides that if a principal employer relies in

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1159

good faith on a valid workers’ compensation insurance policy that has been issued to a subcontractor, then the principal employer will not be liable for injuries to the subcontractor’s employees. Although Estate might have done more to ensure Aztec’s policy was valid, § 11(B)(2) does not require that it do so. There is competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Estate did what was required for compliance. SUSTAINED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by Wiseman, C.J.; Fischer, P.J., and Barnes, J., concur.

107,623 — In the Matter of the Adoption of K.J.M., a minor child. Andrea Paden, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Patrick Spencer, Respondent/ Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Texas County, Hon. Ryan D. Reddick, Trial Judge, finding Father’s minor daughter eligible for adoption without his consent. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding Father failed to establish he took “sufficient legal action to establish and/or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the minor” before receiving notice of the hearing on Mother’s application to determine child’s eligibility for adoption without Father’s consent. Father filed a motion to establish visitation rights on April 28, 2009.

On May 27, 2009, Mother filed a petition for adoption and application requesting an order to determine the child’s eligibility for adoption. The language in 10 O.S. Supp. 2009 § 7505-4.2(H)(2) requires Father to prove he has taken “sufficient legal action to establish and/ or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the minor prior to the receipt of such notice.” It is undisputed that Father took legal action before he received notice of the adoption application and before any hearing on that application. Father’s actions satisfied the requirements of § 7505-4.2(H)(2). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by Wiseman, C.J.; Fischer, P.J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Thursday, April 29, 2010 107,671 — Jason D. Williams, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Board of Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Patricia G. Parrish, Trial Judge, granting the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant and denying Plaintiff’s motion for re-examination. Defendant revoked Plaintiff’s polygraph examiner’s license. On April 20, 2009, Plaintiff 1160

appealed Defendant’s decision to the district court. Plaintiff failed to serve notice and file proof of service within ten days after he filed his petition. Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant by sending certified mail to Defendant’s chairman of the board. Plaintiff filed a notice of service on May 5, 2009. The district court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant. We find that Plaintiff failed to timely serve the petition. Plaintiff was required under the Administrative Procedures Act to serve Defendant and file proof of service within ten days after he filed his petition. Service on a party of record in this case was a jurisdictional prerequisite. The district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed.

We further find the district court did not abuse it discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for re-examination. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by Wiseman, C.J.; Fischer, P.J., and Barnes, J., concur.

(Division No. 3) Thursday, April 22, 2010 107,177 — Douglas Potthoff and Stephanie Potthoff, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Jerome G. Deines and Delores Deines, Husband and Wife; David W. Deburger and Carla J. Deburger, Husband and Wife; John M. Crabtree and Betty Jo Crabtree, Husband and Wife; Brent Baker; Carol Ann Rains; Harold McCurley; Sheri Lynn Hilmes and Deanna Kay Carter; Randal Kevin Baker; Kal Drilling, LLC, and Susan Carroll, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable John A. Blake, Judge. In this section line dispute, Appellants seek to enjoin Appellees from interfering with Appellants’ use of a section-line, which abuts the parties’ property, for ingress and egress to Appellants’ land. Appellants contend they have no permanent legal access to their property other than by means of the section line.

Appellants testified the section line has never been used as a road, it has a dense vegetative undergrowth of tall trees and bushes, it is intersected by a creek with steep embankments and it crosses the edge of Appellees’ pond. Appellants also admitted the road construction may result in damages to Appellees’ property because it crosses their yards, it would be close to two homes and would impact Appellees’ landscaping improvements. Appellants also denied they should compensate Appellees for the damages. There is also evidence that two

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

alternate access routes exist to Appellants’ property, with no negative impact on Appellees’ property. The trial court denied Appellants’ request for a permanent injunction.

AFFIRMED. Opinion by Bell, V.C.J.; Joplin, P.J., and Mitchell, J., concur.

107,178 — Bama Companies, Inc., Bama Companies, Inc. (Own Risk #14563), Petitioner, vs. Rosie Fife and The Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Proceeding to Review an Order of a Three-Judge Panel of The Workers’ Compensation Court. Petitioner (Employer) seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court finding Respondent (Claimant) to be permanently totally disabled (PTD)as a result of her last work-related injury on December 1, 2004, in combination with previous injuries. Employer disputes the jurisdictional determination that Claimant was already a physically impaired person at the time of her last injury. Claimant worked as a machine operator for Employer for 29 years. Claimant presented medical evidence relating to pain and loss of function of her right hand and fingers, as well as permanent disabilities related to her left knee from previous injuries. The evidence is persuasive that Claimant’s right-hand deformity as well as her daily indications of pain, swelling and loss of use of her right hand were observable and apparent to laymen prior to 2004. There is competent evidence that Claimant was a physically impaired person prior to December 2004 and is PTD as a result of the combination of her various disabilities.

The order of the Workers’ Compensation Court is SUSTAINED. Opinion by Mitchell, J.; Joplin, P.J., and Bell, V.C.J., concur.

107,255 — Terry G. Stephens, Petitioner, vs.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol, CompSource Oklahoma, and the Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Proceeding to Review an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Court. Honorable Bob Lake Grove, Judge. Claimant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying interest on an award against the Employer after Claimant’s unsuccessful appeal. In this review proceeding, Claimant challenges the denial of interest as contrary to law and equity. The Workers’ Compensation Court has no authority to grant interest on an award unless Oklahoma workers’ compensation law specifically allows the imposition of interest. Section 727 of title 12 does not authorize the imposition of interest on an award of the Workers’ Compensation Court. Rather, the specific provisions of 85 O.S. §§3.6 and 42 are applicable and controlVol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

ling. Neither §3.6 nor §42(A) authorize the imposition of interest against the employer for that period payment of an award is withheld during an appeal by the claimant. While the legislature specifically authorized the collection of interest from the employer for that period the employer withholds payment during the employer’s unsuccessful appeal, the legislature did not specifically allow the imposition of interest on payments withheld during a claimant’s unsuccessful appeal. SUSTAINED. Opinion by Joplin, P.J.; Bell, V.C.J. and Mitchell, J., concur.

(Division No. 4) Wednesday, April 21, 2010 106,965 — Donald R. Hackler, Plaintiff/ Appellee, vs. First Realty Better Homes & Gardens, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Pittsburg County, Hon. Bill Layden, Trial Judge, denying a motion to reconsider a judgment quieting title to certain real property, used as a parking lot, in favor of Plaintiff based on the doctrine of adverse possession. The trial court’s judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence, and is not contrary to the law or equity. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by Gabbard, P.J.; Goodman, J., concurs; and Rapp, J., not participating.

Thursday, April 22, 2010 107,408 — Woodlawn Manor of Lawton, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Woodlawn L.L.C., d/b/a Pauls Valley Health Care Facility, and Cedar Crest Manor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated entities, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel.

Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Defendant/ Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Daniel L. Owens, Trial Judge. The trial court plaintiffs, Woodlawn Manor of Lawton, Inc., Woodlawn L.L.C., d/b/a Pauls Valley Health Care Facility, and Cedar Crest Manor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Nursing Facilities or “NFs”) appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA). The Nursing Facilities also separately appeal the trial court’s denial of their claim for declaratory judgment, which the Supreme Court consolidated with the summary judgment appeal. The Nursing Facilities provide nursing care in Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1161

and receive Medicaid payment from OHCA. OHCA is the State Medicaid agency through which the federal government coordinates and disburses federal Medicaid funds in accordance with federal law and a federally approved State Medicaid Plan. The State of Oklahoma also provides funds and statutory directives.

This is a case where the Nursing Facilities claim that they were underpaid for several years the money due them for Medicaid reimbursement. Although the Nursing Facilities claim that fact issues exist, there is no dispute about what OHCA did regarding rate calculation and payment. The issue is whether OHCA followed applicable law in each fiscal year involved in this action. Under the standard of review for summary judgments, it is necessary to remand this issue to the district court for further proceedings related to the two fiscal years FY 2003 and FY 2004, and the use of a case-mix system. OHCA satisfied its summary judgment burden as to issues related to COLA adjustments under 63 O.S.2001, § 5023, the Medicaid provider tax under 56 O.S. Supp.

2008, § 2002, the division of additional money available in FY 2008 and FY 2009, and the Focus On Excellence Program. The Nursing Facilities failed to demonstrate that material facts are in dispute or that OHCA is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Declaratory judgment in district court is available under the Declaratory Judgment statutes.

However, the ruling on the summary judgment proceeding disposes of the issues. Therefore, the court’s denial of the Nursing Facilities’s motion for declaratory judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by Rapp, J.; Gabbard, P.J., and Goodman, J., concur.

ORDERS DENYING REHEARING (Division No. 1) Friday, April 23, 2010 106,733 — State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs.

Hazel Lorraine Evans, Defendant/Appellant, and The Rogers County Treasurer, Defendant.

Defendant/Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing filed April 15, 2010 is DENIED. 106,035 — In Re the Marriage of: Kevin Kelley, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Gloria Kelley, Respondent/Appellee. Petitioner/Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing filed April 14, 2010 is DENIED.

1162

(Division No. 4) Wednesday, April 21, 2010 107,415 — Hoyt, Brumm & Link, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Ronald Griffin, and The Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents. Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. 107,615 — City of Stillwater, Oklahoma, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2095, Defendant/Appellee. Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. 106,386 — Kenneth Morgan, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Defendant/Appellee. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing After Change In Opinion is hereby DENIED. 107,656 — Faramarz Mehdipour, Plaintiff/ Appellant, v. Greg Williams, Warden of Oklahoma State Reformatory Employee of Oklahoma Department of Corrections in Granite, Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. Friday, April 23, 2010 106,541 — David M. Vranesevich, Plaintiff/ Appellant, vs. Pearl Craft, Defendant/Appellee. Finding no error, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. 106,933 — State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Department of Transportation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.

Larry D. Carter, a/k/a Larry Dwayne Carter and Elfredia Carter, husband and wife; Bank of Cherokee County; Armstrong Bank; and the Cherokee County Treasurer, Defendants/ Appellees. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. 107,181 — Samson Resources Company, Appellant, v. The Corporation Commission of The State of Oklahoma, composed of the Honorable Bob Anthony, Chairman, the Honorable Jeff Cloud, Vice Chairman, and the Honorable Dana L. Murphy, Commissioner; and Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., Appellees.

Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. Monday, April 26, 2010 106,922 — Rita Eckler, Plaintiff/Appellee, v.

Jeff Hollie, Defendant/Appellant. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

CHICKASAW BAR ASSOCIATION SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING May 7, 2010 • WinStar Golf Club, Thackerville, Oklahoma

3 CLE Credit hours, including 1 hour of Ethics (Pending Approval) Agenda 8 a.m.

Registration & Continental Breakfast 8:30 a.m.

Welcome

• Mr. Jeff Keel, Esq. – Chair of the Chickasaw Bar Association

• Hon. Barbara Smith – Chief Justice of the Chickasaw Nation Supreme Court 8:45 a.m.

Chickasaw Nation District Court Admission Requirements and Jurisdiction

• Hon. Aaron Duck – District Court Judge, Chickasaw Nation District Court

• Hon. Dustin Rowe – Special Judge for the Chickasaw Nation District Court 9:30 a.m.

Practicing in the Chickasaw Nation District Court and the Supreme Court

• Mr. Wayne Joplin – Court Clerk for the Chickasaw Nation District Court

• Mr. David Ponder, Esq. – Court Advocate for the Chickasaw Nation

• Mr. Michael Smith, Esq. – Court Advocate for the Chickasaw Nation 10 a.m.

Practicing Before the Chickasaw Nation Office of the Gaming Commissioner

• Mr. Matthew L. Morgan, Esq. – Gaming Commissioner, the Chickasaw Nation 10:30 a.m. Break 11 a.m.

Ethics

• Mr. Travis Pickens, Esq. – Ethics Counsel for the Oklahoma Bar Association 12 p.m.

Lunch 1 p.m.

Swearing in of New Members to the Chickasaw Bar Association

• Hon. Barbara Smith – Chief Justice, Chickasaw Nation Supreme Court 1:30 p.m.

Adjourn The Chickasaw Nation Bar Association will host this year’s Spring CLE, at the WinStar Golf Club in Thackerville, OK. The Conference Registration is $50, and the Green Fees are $50 . For more information please contact The Chickasaw Bar Association at 580-235-0279 or 580-235-0281.

Biscone & Biscone Attorneys

We will gladly accept your referrals for oklahoma workers’ compensation and social security disability cases.

Anita F. Sanders, Inc. WE WILL GLADLY ACCEPT YOUR BANKRUPTCY REFERRALS Referral Fees Paid.

Association/ referral fees paid

1-800-426-4563 405-232-6490 105 N. Hudson, Suite 100 Hightower Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

200 N. Harvey Ave., Ste. 110 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 589-2864 The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1163

CLASSIFIED ADS SERVICES

SERVICES

Appeals and litigation support — Expert research and writing by a veteran generalist who thrives on wide variety of projects, big or small.

Cogent. Concise. Nancy K. Anderson, (405) 682-9554, nkanderson@hotmail.com.

Want To Purchase Minerals AND OTHER OIL/GAS INTERESTS. Send details to: P.O. box 13557, Denver, CO 80201.

HANDWRITING IDENTIFICATION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION

TWO EXECUTIVE OFFICES AVAILABLE IN THE RIVERPARK BLDG. at 1874 S. Boulder. Offices include receptionist, conference room, telephone, highspeed computer access, security system, utilities and free parking. Great location and easy access to courthouse, all major highways, Cherry Street and Utica Square. Call Keith Ward at (918) 764-9011 or e-mail riverparkbuilding@keithwardlaw.com.

Board Certified Diplomate — ABFE Life Fellow — ACFE

Court Qualified Former OSBI Agent FBI National Academy

Arthur D. Linville (405) 636-1522 INTERESTED IN PURCHASING PRODUCING & NON-PRODUCING Minerals; ORRI; O & G Interests.

Please contact: Patrick Cowan, CPL, CSW Corporation, P.O. Box 21655, Oklahoma City, OK 73156-1655; (405) 755-7200; Fax (405) 755-5555; E-mail: pcowan@cox.net.

OF COUNSEL LEGAL RESOURCES — SINCE 1992 — Exclusive research & writing. Highest quality: trial and appellate, state and federal, admitted and practiced U.S. Supreme Court. Over 20 published opinions with numerous reversals on certiorari. MaryGaye LeBoeuf (405) 728-9925, marygaye@cox.net.

EXPERT WITNESSES • ECONOMICS • VOCATIONAL • MEDICAL Fitzgerald Economic and Business Consulting Economic Damages, Lost Profits, Analysis, Business/ Pension Valuations, Employment, Discrimination, Divorce, Wrongful Discharge, Vocational Assessment, Life Care Plans, Medical Records Review, Oil and Gas Law and Damages. National, Experience. Call Patrick Fitzgerald. (405) 919-2312.

Brief Writing, Appeals, Research and Discovery Support. Fifteen years experience in civil litigation. Backed by established firm. Neil D. Van Dalsem, Taylor, Ryan, Schmidt & Van Dalsem P.C. (918) 749-5566, nvandalsem@trsvlaw.com.

BUSINESS VALUATIONS: Marital Dissolution * Estate, Gift & Income Tax * Family Limited Partnerships * Buy-Sell Agreements * Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganization & Bankruptcy * SBA/Bank Required. Dual Certified by NACVA and IBA, experienced, reliable, established in 1982. Travel engagements accepted. Connally & Associates, P.C. (918) 743-8181 or bconnally@ connallypc.com.

FREELANCE BOOK LAWYER — with highest rating and with 25+ years’ experience on both sides of the table is available for strategic planning, legal research and writing in all state and federal trial and appellate courts and administrative agencies. Admitted and practiced before the United States Supreme Court. Janice M. Dansby, 405-833-2813, jdansby@concentric.net.

1164

OFFICE SPACE

511 COUCH DRIVE: BEAUTIFUL, SPACIOUS OFFICES. Third floor of a building in Arts District downtown Oklahoma City. Within walking distance of City, County and Federal Courthouses. Parking at the door.

Approximately 6,000 sq. feet available, or may be divided. Please call Linda G. Alexander at (405) 232-2725 for a showing.

PERIMETER CENTER OFFICE COMPLEX, located at 39th and Tulsa currently has offices available ranging from 1,098 – 2,116 square feet. We are offering two months free rent on a three or five year lease contract.

We also have executive suites leasing from $200 to $425 per month. Please call (405) 943-3001 for appointment, or stop by M – F between the hours of 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.

DOWNTOWN TULSA OFFICE SHARE FOR A SOLO. Large windows with view, furnished or unfurnished.

Two blocks to courthouse. Phone, internet, copy/fax, conference room and kitchen. Inside parking available.

(918) 585-2255, Karen.

OFFICE SHARE FOR RENT: NW Classen, OKC. Telephone, library, waiting area, receptionist, telephone answering service, desk, chair, file cabinet, included in rent.

One for $290 and one for $390 per month. Free parking, no lease required. Gene or Charles (405) 525-6671.

POSITIONS AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN TULSA AV RATED FIRM SEEKS ASSOCIATE with 3 to 10 years civil litigation experience.

Firm offers an excellent compensation package. Salary is commensurate with experience. Strong academic record required. Please send resume, references, writing sample and law school transcript to “Box Z,” Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152.

RUBENSTEIN MCCORMICK & PITTS (EDMOND OFFICE) is looking for an ambitious full-time attorney with 2-5 years experience in business, tax and litigation. Competitive salary with benefits. Send resume with writing sample to mrubenstein@oklawpartners.com or to Mike Rubenstein, 1503 E. 19th St., Edmond, OK 73013.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

POSITIONS AVAILABLE

POSITIONS AVAILABLE

THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH is seeking a general counsel. Reporting directly to the Commissioner, this position performs highly responsible administrative and professional legal work in directing and coordinating the operations and functions of all legal services. Also directs the preparation of cases for court, the drafting of legislation, and serves as the internal advisor. Education and Experience: Graduate of an accredited law school; active membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and a minimum of five (5) years in practice of law, including three (3) years experience as a senior attorney responsible for the management of a legal office or department. Travel required. Salary: $95K per year DOQ, plus full benefits. To review a complete position announcement visit www.health.ok.gov and contact Lisa Dennison by email at employment@health.ok.gov, by fax at (405) 271-3539, or by mail at: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Attn: Lisa Dennison, 1000 N.E. 10th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73117. AA/EEO.

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL JUDGE POSITIONS. Special Judges are called to act as Municipal Judge for the City of Oklahoma City during absence of full-time judge.

Requirements include residency in the City of OKC and minimum of 4 years experience as licensed practicing attorney in state of Oklahoma. Interested applicants contact Becca Jessop, Department of Court Administration, at 700 Couch Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via e-mail at becca.jessop@okc.gov. Applications will be accepted April 21, 2010 through May 12, 2010. Names of final applicants will be submitted to City Council for approval.

DOWNTOWN OKLAHOMA CITY AV RATED FIRM has immediate opening for attorney with 3-8 years experience in commercial litigation and bankruptcy.

Compensation commensurate with experience; excellent benefits. Send resume with writing sample to gbryant@mswerb.com.

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION ATTORNEY - OKLAHOMA CITY: Attorney with 6 - 8+ years exp. or more in Commercial/Business Litigation. Federal court exp. required. Securities Fraud Litigation exp. preferred.

Billable hours 2000 annually. Very lucrative compensation. Please e-mail Word resume & salary requirements to: tamar@tmsrecruiting.com.

STAFF ATTORNEY – WEATHERFORD: Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma is seeking an Attorney for its Weatherford Law Office, serving Alfalfa, Beaver, Beckham, Blaine, Cimarron, Custer, Dewey, Ellis, Harper, Major, Roger Mills, Texas, Washita, Woods, and Woodward counties. The attorney will be responsible for cases involving general law issues. Applicants are required to have a J.D. from an accredited law school and be admitted to practice in Oklahoma. Prefer interest in working with indigent individuals. Salary is according to Legal Aid’s salary administration plan. Compensation includes generous benefits including health, dental, life, pension and more. Applicants must complete Legal Aid’s application (available for online submissions or printing) and should submit a resume. Online submissions are preferred. Review materials needed for the online application or print the application for submission by mail at this link: http://www.oklaw.org/link. cfm?2879. Submissions of your completed application and a resume or mail hard copy to: Bud Cowsert, Director of Operations, 2915 Classen Blvd., Suite 500, Oklahoma City, OK 73106. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Legal Aid is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. View the complete version of this job description at this link: http://www.oklaw.org/link.cfm?2878.

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

DELAWARE RESOURCE GROUP, A BUSEY GROUP COMPANY, seeks candidates for corporate counsel to assist with employment law, government regulations, contracts, corporate law, teaming agreements and coordination with outside counsel. Successful candidate must be flexible, adaptable and able to multi-task in a fast-paced environment. Business development capabilities with corporate team are a plus. Northwest OKC location, company paid benefits and salary based on experience. Candidates should submit resume, cover letter, and at least 2 writing samples by e-mail cbusey@buseygroup.com or fax (405) 721-7779, to the attention of Cathy Busey.

OK INSURANCE DEPT. ATTORNEY II: Insurance or financial experience preferred. For complete job descriptions and requirements go to www.oid.ok.gov.

Fax: (405) 522-8969, AA/EEO. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA LAW FIRM SEEKS ATTORNEY to handle probates, guardianships, basic wills and trusts, LLC and corporation formation. Send resume and writing sample to “Box X,” Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152.

AV RATED FIRM SEEKS EXPERIENCED CIVIL LITIGATION ATTORNEY with 3 to 8 years experience for associate or of-counsel position in new satellite office in Yukon. The position is focused on general litigation and civil rights. A candidate with an existing practice in the Yukon/Mustang area will be favorably considered. Salary is commensurate with experience. Travel is required. Send resume, writing sample and salary requirements via email to Steve@czwglaw.com or by mail to: Collins, Zorn & Wagner PC, 1703 Professional Circle, Suite 201, Yukon, OK 73099.

AV-RATED DOWNTOWN OKC FIRM SEEKS ASSOCIATE with 5 to 10 years civil litigation experience with emphasis in insurance defense. Salary is commensurate with experience. Please send resume, references and writing sample to Abowitz, Timberlake, Dahnke & Gisinger, Attention Sarah Timberlake, P.O. Box 1937, Oklahoma City, OK 73102.

MAPLES LAW FIRM IS ACCEPTING RESUMES for an associate attorney. Two to five years general litigation experience is a must. Applicant must be able to immediately assume responsibilities in brief writing, answering discovery, court appearances and deposition. Please send resumes and salary requirements via facsimile (405) 488-1485 or email ray@mapleslawokc.com.

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1165

POSITIONS AVAILABLE

POSITIONS AVAILABLE

LEGAL ASSISTANT NEEDED for very busy law office in Yukon. Experience in civil litigation preferred. Salary commensurate with experience. Please send resume and references via email to Steve@czwglaw.com or by mail to: Collins, Zorn & Wagner PC, 1703 Professional Circle, Suite 201, Yukon, OK 73099.

NW OKC FIRM SEEKS ASSOCIATE with 2-5 years experience with strong academic, excellent analytical, writing and research skills to work in the areas of litigation, probates, guardianships, business and commercial law. Paralegal with 3+ years experience in civil litigation also needed. Send resume and salary requirements to lawfirmad@gmail.com. All applicants will be kept in strictest confidence.

ESTATE PLANNING/TRUSTS ATTORNEY - OKLAHOMA CITY: Attorney with 8 -10+ years exp. or more in Estate Planning & Trusts with established client base that would like to continue growing practice under the solid leadership of an existing firm. Billable hours 2000 annually. Very lucrative compensation.

Please e-mail Word resume & salary requirements to: tamar@tmsrecruiting.com.

HARD WORK REWARDED at young, growing, AVrated downtown OKC firm with 10 attorneys. Pignato, Cooper, Kolker & Roberson, P.C. is seeking two associates with 1 to 5 years civil litigation experience, preferably insurance defense. Strong research and writing skills a must. Best benefits in town. Salary and bonuses commensurate with experience. Send resume and writing sample to paul@pclaw.org or the firm’s Oklahoma City office located at 119 N. Robinson, Suite 1120, Oklahoma City, OK 73102.

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION CLASSIFIED RATES: One dollar per word per insertion. Minimum charge $35. Add $15 surcharge per issue for blind box advertisements to cover forwarding of replies. Blind box word count must include “Box ____ , Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152.” Display classified ads with bold headline and border are $50 per inch. See www.okbar.org for issue dates and Display Ad sizes and rates.

DEADLINE: Tuesday noon before publication. Ads must be prepaid. Send ad (e-mail preferred) in writing stating number of times to be published to: Jeff Kelton, Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152 E-mail: jeffk@okbar.org Publication and contents of any advertisement is not to be deemed an endorsement of the views expressed therein, nor shall the publication of any advertisement be considered an endorsement of the procedure or service involved. All placement notices must be clearly nondiscriminatory.

2010 OBA Family Law Section Calendar

• May 14, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting • June 11, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting • June 24-26, 2010 OBA Solo/Small Firm (Downstream Resort & Casino Quapaw, OK) • July 9, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting • August 13, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting • September 10, 2010 Monthly Meeting during Leadership Retreat & NO Monthly CLE

u September 9, 2010 OBA/FLS Co-Sponsored CLE in Tulsa

u September 10, 2010 OBA/FLS Co-Sponsored CLE in OKC • October 8, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting • November 2010

u November 17, 2010: Annual Meeting Family Law Track (Tulsa)

u November 18, 2010: OBA FLS Annual CLE & Business Meeting (Tulsa) • December 10, 2010 CLE and Monthly Meeting Í 3:30 p.m. Free Monthly CLE (Tulsa & OKC via teleconference) Í 4:30 p.m. Business meeting- All FLS members encouraged to attend ****** Í 5:00 P.M. Social / Networking hour (Both Oklahoma City and Tulsa) Tulsa: OSU/Tulsa North Hall, 204 North Greenwood, Room 208 OKC: OBA Center, 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard ***** OBA FLS ATTENDANCE APPRECIATION PRIZE: EACH MONTH ANY OBA FLS MEMBER WHO ATTENDS THE MONTHLY BUSINESS MEETING WILL RECEIVE AN ENTRY INTO THE SPECIAL PRIZE DRAWING TO BE HELD DURING OUR ANNUAL MEETING IN NOVEMBER 2010!

For information contact Kimberly K. Hays, 248 West 16th Street, Tulsa, OK 74119; 918-592-2800; Kimberlyhayslaw@aol.com

1166

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

Vol. 81 — No. 13 — 5/8/2010

The Oklahoma Bar Journal

1167