Could a lawyer buy small heirs' interests in an estate, take title through a relative, and file partition suits to force a sale for his own gain?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a lawyer in the habit of buying an heir's interest in a decedent's estate, taking title in the name of his son-in-law, and immediately bringing a partition suit in district court. In the particular case described, the lawyer bought a 1/24 interest from a grandchild of the deceased and sued to partition while the estate was being administered in county court. After the district court dismissed and the Supreme Court affirmed, the lawyer used appeals and a rehearing motion to block administration for nearly four years while he and an associate bought out the remaining heirs for next to nothing, telling them he was sure to win and that taxes and expenses would consume their interests. In one instance he bought a one-fourth interest in land appraised at nearly $4,000 for $250.

The Board concluded the practice was improper and unethical, interdicted by the spirit, if not the express language, of Rule 30 (stirring up litigation) and Rule 31 (requiring a member to uphold the honor of the profession), and in violation of the lawyer's oath that he will delay no man for lucre. It condemned the practice as an abuse by a member of the bar of his high official position for personal selfish gain, tending to bring reproach and discredit upon the profession.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1934, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The rules cited here, Rules 30 and 31, belong to that superseded canon-era code. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer buy fractional estate interests and bring partition suits for profit?

A: The opinion condemned the described practice as improper and unethical, interdicted by Rule 30's bar on stirring up litigation and Rule 31's duty to uphold the honor of the profession.

Q: Why did the Board treat it as so serious?

A: It found the practice an abuse of the lawyer's position for personal selfish gain that tended to bring reproach and discredit upon the profession, and a violation of the oath to delay no man for lucre.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 30 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (against stirring up litigation) and Rule 31 (upholding the honor and dignity of the profession), together with the bar member's oath, all drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 30 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): against stirring up litigation.
• Rule 31 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): the duty to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 79: Soliciting work as amicus curiae
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 74: Lawyer business cards in a newspaper column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-83/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted December 27, 1934

The Board is in receipt of the following request for an advisory opinion:

"Is it proper for a member of the State Bar of Oklahoma to buy an heir's interest in the estate of a deceased person, take the title in the name of his son-in-law and immediately bring suit in the District Court to partition same? We have a lawyer here who is in the habit of doing such things. In a particular case he bought a 1/24 interest from a grand child of the deceased, brought suit to partition in the district court, while the estates were being administered in the county court. A motion to dismiss his suit was filed and on hearing the motion the district court rendered judgment dismissing his action, from which judgment he appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, thus blocking the administration proceedings for nearly four years. Immediately after taking his appeal he and an associate commenced to buy the interest of the balance of the heirs, giving them next to nothing for their interests, telling them that he was sure to win in the Supreme Court and the taxes and expenses would take their interest any way. On the …… day of …… the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. He filed a motion for re-hearing in order to hold the matter up longer hoping he could get the balance of the shares for nothing … This is not his first nor his last act of the kind. In the instance referred to he bought one fourth interest in land appraised for nearly $4,000.00 for $250.00."

In response:

The practice of the member of the bar referred to is improper and unethical as being interdicted by the spirit, if not the express language of Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct with reference to stirring up litigation, and of Rule 31 requiring a member to uphold the honor of the profession. It is also in violation of the oath taken by a member of the bar by which he states that he will delay no man for lucre.

Such a practice is condemned as an abuse by a member of the bar of his high official position for personal selfish gain, thus tending to bring reproach and discredit upon the profession.