State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen
2000 OK 95, 71 O.B.A.J. 3227, 17 P.3d 456 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's rule of professional conduct prohibiting attorneys from providing financial assistance to clients for personal living expenses, while permitting advances for litigation costs, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction is rationally related to the legitimate state interests of preventing conflicts of interest and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
Facts:
- Attorney Donald E. Smolen represented Mr. Miles in a workers' compensation case.
- During the representation, Mr. Miles's home was destroyed by fire, causing him financial hardship.
- Smolen loaned Mr. Miles $1,200 for living expenses, stating on the check that it was for travel expenses.
- The loan was interest-free and was to be repaid from Mr. Miles's temporary disability benefits.
- Mr. Miles indicated that without the loan, he would have to move out of state, preventing him from continuing medical treatment and making court appearances.
- After Mr. Miles sought a new attorney, Smolen terminated the attorney-client relationship.
- Smolen admitted that this loan was not an isolated incident and that he had a practice of providing such financial assistance to clients.
Procedural Posture:
- During mediation of a fee dispute between Mr. Miles and a subsequent attorney, the Tulsa County Bar Association learned of Smolen's loan.
- The Tulsa County Bar Association reported Smolen's conduct to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) filed a complaint against Donald E. Smolen (Respondent) with the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT).
- The parties stipulated to the facts and a recommended discipline.
- The PRT accepted the stipulations, found that Smolen had violated rule 1.8(e), and recommended that he be publicly censured.
- The matter then came before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for de novo review of the PRT's findings and recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(e), which prohibits lawyers from providing financial assistance to clients for living expenses while allowing advances for litigation costs, violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
No, Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The rule's prohibition against lawyers providing financial assistance to clients for living expenses is a valid and enforceable ethical standard. The court reasoned that the rule is rooted in the common-law prohibitions against champerty and maintenance, which are designed to prevent two primary evils: clients selecting lawyers based on improper financial inducements rather than competence, and the creation of conflicts of interest that could compromise a lawyer's independent professional judgment. The court rejected Smolen's argument for a 'humanitarian' exception, noting that even well-intentioned loans could become known and lead to 'bidding wars' for cases. Applying the rational basis test to the equal protection challenge, the court found legitimate reasons to distinguish between litigation costs and living expenses. These reasons include that litigation costs are directly related to the case and within a lawyer's expertise, whereas living expenses are not. Therefore, the rule's classification is rationally related to the legitimate goals of protecting clients and preserving the integrity of the legal profession.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict and traditional prohibition against attorneys advancing living expenses to clients, aligning Oklahoma with the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions. By rejecting a 'humanitarian exception' and upholding the rule against a constitutional equal protection challenge, the court solidifies the rule's legal foundation and makes future challenges on similar grounds unlikely to succeed. The case serves as a clear warning to practitioners that good intentions do not excuse violations of this ethical rule, and that such conduct, particularly by a repeat offender, will result in significant professional discipline. It underscores the profession's concern with avoiding conflicts of interest and preventing the commercialization of legal practice.
