## Facts

- Robert L. Scott retained Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. (a law firm) in October 1984 to defend a mortgage foreclosure and collection action brought by United Oklahoma Bank after Scott defaulted on a business loan.
- Over about ten months, the firm billed 1,295.9 hours for a total of $140,116.87.
- Scott paid $54,275.37 for the first five months (524.5 hours) but did not pay $85,841.50 billed for the next five months (753.4 hours).
- When the bank moved for summary judgment, Wheeler warned Scott he would withdraw unless fees were paid; Scott refused.
- Wheeler sent a first-year associate (about five months’ experience) to argue the summary-judgment motion; the associate billed a substantial share of the work at $110 per hour.
- Summary judgment was granted against Scott; Wheeler then withdrew, Scott hired new counsel, and the foreclosure action later settled.
- Wheeler sued Scott to collect unpaid fees; Scott counterclaimed that the fees were excessive, emphasizing the lack of trial, the large hours charged by an inexperienced associate, and the lower fees and hours billed by the bank’s experienced counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s reduced fee award to Wheeler remained excessive under Oklahoma’s reasonableness framework for attorney fees (including the Burk and Oliver’s Sports Center factors).
2. Whether the trial court improperly focused on total hours billed rather than balancing the full set of reasonableness considerations, including complexity, attorney experience, and results obtained.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded.
- The Court held that the fee award was excessive even after the trial court reduced it from $140,116.87 to $125,723.00.
- The Court concluded the trial court placed undue weight on hours billed and did not adequately balance the governing reasonableness factors.
- The case was remanded for a fresh determination of a reasonable attorney fee consistent with those factors.

## Legal Principles

- A reasonable attorney fee requires determining a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours, then considering additional factors to ensure the fee reflects the case’s actual demands and is not a windfall.
- Courts must not treat recorded hours as self-justifying; time must be scrutinized for whether it was necessary and reasonable in light of the matter’s difficulty and the work performed.
- The attorney’s experience and ability, the customary market rate, the results obtained, and the nature of the litigation must be weighed; a fee may be unreasonable where a relatively simple case generates very high hours and charges, particularly when much work is billed by inexperienced lawyers at premium rates.
- Comparative indicators, including the scale of work performed by opposing counsel, may inform whether a requested fee is disproportionate, though such comparisons are not controlling.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that the reduced six-figure fee award in a relatively straightforward foreclosure defense reflected an overreliance on billed hours rather than a balanced reasonableness analysis, and it required the trial court to recalculate the fee using the full Burk/Oliver framework.


Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott, 777 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1989)