Oklahoma Referral Fee Rules

Short answer. Oklahoma lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct). The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.

Sources read October 9, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 28, 2026. Rules text is as printed on the rule pages of OSCN (oscn.net), fetched October 9, 2026; Rule 8.5(b) is read from an Internet Archive copy of its OSCN page captured January 9, 2019, because the live page was not reachable. The pre-2008 rules and the statutes (5 O.S. § 7, captured May 23, 2024; 21 O.S. § 591, captured January 9, 2019) are read from Internet Archive copies of OSCN pages. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.

Oklahoma’s referral fee rules at a glance

What Rule 1.5(e) says

Rule 1.5(e) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, in force since January 1, 2008 (Okla. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e), OSCN):

(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client agrees to the arrangement and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

These words took effect by 2007 OK 22. The former Rule 1.5(e), in force until December 31, 2007, read (former Rule 1.5(e), Internet Archive copy of OSCN):

(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all of the lawyers involved; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

Our research holds no start date for those former words. The former client clause (“advised of and does not object”) is not today’s rule. Horn, Frasier, Martin and Opinion 316, which applied the pre-2008 wording, did not construe today’s Rule 1.5(e) or Rule 5.4(a); Garrett construed both the pre-2008 and the current Rule 1.5(e).

What the client must agree to in writing

Every division between lawyers not in the same firm needs the client’s agreement to the arrangement, confirmed in writing (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). The rule’s words do not name the share each lawyer will receive.

In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Smith (2024), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma found that a lawyer who, from a $75,000 wrongful-death settlement obtained in 2016, paid the referring lawyer a $10,000 referral fee, where the client was unaware of the fee and did not agree in writing to the referral fee arrangement, violated Rule 1.5(e)(2), as he admitted.

In Garrett v. Bell (Court of Civil Appeals, decided 2023, cited 2024 OK CIV APP 13), the court said that if subject to the current Rule 1.5(e)(2), the clients are clearly required to agree in writing to the fee division arrangement, and held that client fee contracts allowing the lawyer to associate unnamed co-counsel at no added cost, and letters to clients advising of the association that did not mention a division of fees and were not signed by the clients, did not meet it. It noted the record did not show which version of the rule applied to each client’s arrangement.

Before 2008 the rule’s words called for a written agreement with the client only on the joint-responsibility route (former (e)(1): “by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility”); its client clause was that the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all of the lawyers involved (former (e)(2)). Garrett described “the client’s written consent in both versions” and held that a referral letter between counsel that no client executed lacked the client agreement or ratification either version requires.

What must be disclosed to the client

The rule’s client term is that the client agrees to the arrangement and the agreement is confirmed in writing (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). Its words do not require that the client be told each lawyer’s share.

Garrett (2023) read subpart (e) as directed to the division of fees between lawyers not of the same firm “and how those fees will be divided”, held that simply advising the client of the potential association of another unidentified lawyer as co-counsel does not satisfy the requirement, and found no evidence that any of the clients had been informed or was aware that the two firms would split a fee. In Smith (2024), the violation was found where the client was unaware of the referral fee paid.

Before 2008 the client had to be advised of and not object to the participation of all of the lawyers involved (former Rule 1.5(e)(2)); Garrett described that version as requiring that the client be informed of and agree to all counsel involved.

Proportionality or joint responsibility

Every division between lawyers not in the same firm must meet all three conditions of Rule 1.5(e): the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation ((e)(1)); the client agrees to the arrangement and the agreement is confirmed in writing ((e)(2)); and the total fee is reasonable ((e)(3)). Before 2008, joint responsibility was assumed “by written agreement with the client”; the former (e)(3) had the same words. No authority we hold decides a question under today’s (e)(1).

Enforcing a fee-division agreement. In Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Horn (1993), applying the pre-2008 rule, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that, assuming the landowners’ lawyers’ fee-splitting agreement violated Rule 1.5(e), the condemnor was not relieved of its statutory responsibility to reimburse their attorney fees, relying on the Rules’ Scope statement that the Rules are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. In Garrett (2023), the Court of Civil Appeals held that a referral agreement between lawyers lacking the clients’ agreement did not comply with either version of Rule 1.5(e), yet the receiving lawyer could not rely on the violation as a defense to liability for fees owed, if any; it did not address enforcing such an agreement against a client with no knowledge of it.

Former partners. In Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, L.L.P. v. Flynn (2005), applying the pre-2008 rule, the Court of Civil Appeals held that Rule 1.5(e) does not prohibit a law firm from sharing fees with a former partner under a separation agreement for work arising from matters entrusted to the firm before the partner’s departure.

Referring a case out of Oklahoma, or into it

Oklahoma’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Oklahoma exercises its disciplinary authority (Okla. R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(b), Internet Archive copy of OSCN), in force since January 1, 2008:

(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:

(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and

(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.

These words are carried from a January 9, 2019 Internet Archive copy of the OSCN page; the live page was not reachable when our research read it. The pre-2008 Rule 8.5 had no choice-of-law paragraph.

Receiving a case into Oklahoma, or sending one out. Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral or fee division.

Our searches (October 9, 2026) found no Oklahoma statute, court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b), and the case-law search ran no query naming Rule 8.5. This page does not say none exists.

Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers

• Payment for referrals. “(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value, directly or indirectly, to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may” pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by Rule 7.2 (Rule 7.2(b)(1)); pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, a qualified lawyer referral service being a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority (Rule 7.2(b)(2)); pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17 (Rule 7.2(b)(3)); and, without paying anything solely for the referral, refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional under an agreement not otherwise prohibited under the Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive and the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement (Rule 7.2(b)(4)(i)–(ii)). Rule 7.2(b) is in force since January 1, 2008 (OSCN). The former Rule 7.2(k), in force until December 31, 2007, carried the bar without the reciprocal-referral exception, and its referral-service exception named “a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or legal service organization” (former Rule 7.2(k)(2)). Our searches found no Oklahoma court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 7.2(b) or the former Rule 7.2(k).
• Nonlawyers. “(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that:” an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to one or more specified persons (Rule 5.4(a)(1)); a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price (Rule 5.4(a)(2)); a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer (Rule 5.4(a)(2A)); and a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement (Rule 5.4(a)(3)). Oklahoma’s Rule 5.4(a)(4) prints only “[The concept of this subsection of the ABA Model Rule is addressed in the Comment.]”; that Comment is not in our research, and this page does not state its terms. Rule 5.4(a) is in force since January 1, 2008 (OSCN).
• Nonlawyers, under the pre-2008 rule. Under the former Rule 5.4(a), in force until December 31, 2007, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Martin (2010) rejected a finding of a Rule 5.4(a) violation where the record did not show the lawyer shared legal fees from his clients’ cases with the nonlawyer, and OBA Ethics Opinion No. 316 (2001, advisory) advised that a law practice and the lawyer’s separately billed ancillary business that does not practice law acting in the same matter is not impermissible fee-splitting with a nonlawyer. Neither construed today’s Rule 5.4(a).

Statutes. This page states what the statutes say, not how a court or the Oklahoma Bar Association has applied them. It gives no effective date for either. Both are read from Internet Archive copies of OSCN pages; an amendment after a capture would not show there.

5 O.S. § 7, “Contingent Fee - Limitation on Amount-Compromise or Settlement - Effect on Liens - Contract Void When Layman Secures or Has Any Interest Therein” (Internet Archive copy of OSCN, captured May 23, 2024):

It shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client’s cause of action or claim not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of such judgment as may be recovered, or such compromise as may be made, whether the same arises ex contractu or ex delicto, and no compromise or settlement entered into by a client without such attorney’s consent shall affect or abrogate the lien provided for in this chapter. Provided that all such contracts in personal injury or wrongful death cases including, but not restricted to, cases in which jurisdiction is in the Industrial Commission, shall be void and unenforceable (1) if secured as a result of the intervention of any laymen, association, or corporation for compensation, or promise of compensation, or anticipation of gift, compensation or hope of reward, or (2) where any laymen, association or corporation has a direct or indirect interest in, or growing out of, any judgment arising out of such claim recovery or compensation from, or settlement of any such claim.

21 O.S. § 591, “Attorney’s Use of Agent Runners Prohibited - Exception - Penalty” (Internet Archive copy of OSCN, captured January 9, 2019). Whether § 591 remains current after Oklahoma’s 2013 rewrite of its workers’ compensation law was not checked in our research.

A. As used in this section:

1. “Agent” means any person who acts for another at the request or with the knowledge of the other in dealing with third persons; and

2. “Runner”, “capper”, and “steerer” mean any person acting within this state for compensation as an agent for an attorney in the solicitation of employment for the attorney.

B. No attorney shall, by means of an agent, runner, capper, steerer, or other person who is not an attorney, solicit or procure a person to employ the attorney to present, compromise, or settle a claim under the workers’ compensation laws of this state.

C. No attorney shall, directly or indirectly, pay or promise to pay any person, other than another attorney, any money, service, fee, commission, or other thing of value in consideration for the employment of the attorney to present, compromise, or settle a claim under the workers’ compensation laws of this state.

D. No person shall act or agree to act as an agent, runner, capper, or steerer for an attorney.

E. Subsections B and C of this section shall not prohibit participation by an attorney in a voluntary attorney referral program including, but not limited to, referral programs operated by an association of attorneys. This subsection shall not authorize a referral program which is otherwise unauthorized under the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court.

F. Any contract for employment of an attorney secured in violation of this section shall be void and unenforceable and no attorney shall appear or otherwise provide services in an action in violation of this section.

G. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of up to Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) for each offense, which shall not be subject to Section 101 of Title 85 [85-101] of the Oklahoma Statutes. Penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any penalties which might be imposed by the Oklahoma Bar Association or similar organization of another state or by a court when punishing for contempt or when imposing sanctions against an attorney or party.

Oklahoma cases

We state what each decision held, in the words of our research. Later treatment of these decisions has not been searched, so do not read this list as a statement that each one remains good law. Horn, Frasier and Martin applied the pre-2008 rules; Garrett construed both the pre-2008 Rule 1.5(e) and the current Rule 1.5(e)(2); only Smith and Garrett apply today’s Rule 1.5(e)(2). Each holding is stated as the decision’s own, on the wording it applied.

Oklahoma Bar Association ethics opinions

This opinion is one of the OBA’s legal ethics advisory opinions and is not binding. As with the cases, later treatment of it has not been searched.

What our research did not find

• 5 O.S. § 7 and 21 O.S. § 591 carry no effective date in our research: the enrolled acts their Historical Data names (R.L. 1910 § 248, amended by Laws 1953, HB 1187; Laws 1994, 2nd Extr. Sess., HB 1002) are not held, so this page gives no date for either. Both are read from Internet Archive copies of OSCN (§ 7 captured May 23, 2024; § 591 captured January 9, 2019); an amendment after a capture would not show, and § 591’s currency after Oklahoma’s 2013 rewrite of its workers’ compensation law was not checked. This page does not say either is unchanged since its capture. § 591’s heading line holds only its section heading.
• No decision we hold applies 5 O.S. § 7’s layman clause; OBA Opinions 41, 299 and 325 apply only its contingent-fee clauses and are not part of what this page relies on. No authority we hold construes 21 O.S. § 591. This page states what the statutes say, not how a court or the OBA has applied them.
• The former Rules 1.5(e), 5.4(a) and 7.2(k), with their subparts, carry no start date in our research: the order adopting the Rules effective July 1, 1988 and the amending orders the pre-2008 pages name (among them October 1993 for Rule 1.5) are not held. Each ends December 31, 2007, by 2007 OK 22. This page gives no start date for them.
• Horn (1993), Frasier (2005), Martin (2010) and Opinion 316 (2001) applied the pre-2008 rules; Garrett (2023) construed both the pre-2008 Rule 1.5(e) and the current Rule 1.5(e)(2); only Smith (2024) and Garrett apply today’s Rule 1.5(e)(2). Their holdings are stated as their own. Horn was decided on September 29, 1993, before the October 1993 amendment of Rule 1.5, and does not quote the rule, so the former Rule 1.5(e) words on this page are not shown to be the words it applied. This page does not present Horn, Frasier, Martin or Opinion 316 as construing today’s Rule 1.5(e) or 5.4(a), or the former client clause (“advised of and does not object”) as today’s.
• The pre-2008 and current rules are numbered differently, and our research records the renumbering only in notes, with no succession links between parts. This page compares old and new rules only by the words it quotes or carries.
• The Comments to Rules 5.4 and 7.2 (including the Comment to which Rule 5.4(a)(4) points, and Rule 7.2’s Comment [5] and Oklahoma Modification note), Rule 1.17 (named by Rules 5.4(a)(2) and 7.2(b)(3)) and Rule 1.0 are not in the research this page is drawn from, and this page does not state their terms. The stored words of Rule 7.2(b)(2) end with a colon after “approved by an appropriate regulatory authority”; no words after it are carried, and this page adds none.
• Our searches (October 9, 2026) found no Oklahoma statute on dividing a fee between lawyers or on choice of law; no OBA ethics opinion applying the pre-2008 or current Rule 1.5(e) or Rule 8.5(b), or the former Rule 7.2(k) or current Rule 7.2(b); and no Oklahoma court decision applying Rule 7.2(b), the former Rule 7.2(k) or Rule 8.5(b). The statute search read the Title 21 index (§§ 548-592) and the Title 5 chapter 1 index through Internet Archive copies, with OSCN’s own statute search blocked and the OBA’s rules (5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 1) not read; the case search read only the first results page of each CourtListener query; and OBA Opinion No. 241 (1966, division of fees with a forwarding attorney, per the OBA index) was not found online. This page says only what these searches found, not that no such statute, opinion or decision exists.
• 21 O.S. §§ 550, 551 and 553 (common barratry), Rule 7.3, Cummings & Associates v. City of Oklahoma City (1993) and OBA Opinion 310 (1998) are held in our research but are not in the research this page is drawn from, so this page does not describe them. 21 O.S. § 592 (medical-provider runners) was read and is outside this page’s subject.
• Smith (2024) ¶15 paraphrases Rule 1.5(e)(2) as “the arrangement is confirmed in writing” where the rule reads “the agreement is confirmed in writing” (its n.16 quotes the rule); this page quotes the rule’s words, not Smith’s ¶15. Garrett is a Court of Civil Appeals decision issued October 27, 2023 and cited 2024 OK CIV APP 13; Frasier is a Court of Civil Appeals decision resting on other states’ decisions. Garrett’s account of Pierce Couch v. Freede (1997) and of the unpublished Gavin Agee Carlton v. Coon (2020) is Garrett’s own; neither decision is described here.
• Cited leads not read: Gavin Agee Carlton, P.C. v. Brent W. Coon, P.C. (unpublished, Court of Civil Appeals, 2020, which Garrett criticizes) and In re Wright (5th Cir. 2005, which Garrett cites). Deferred as decided under superseded rules: OBA Opinions 5, 6, 7, 10, 64, 103, 126, 181, 214, 242, the 242 lawyer-referral-service page, 249, 250, 251 and 291, and Dietrich Corp. v. King Resources (10th Cir. 1979, Colorado Code). The authorities on this page are not the only Oklahoma authorities on the topic.
• Opinion 316 is one of the OBA’s legal ethics advisory opinions, not binding. It carries no OBA opinion number field in our research; this page cites it as Ethics Opinion No. 316 by its title.
• Later treatment of every Oklahoma authority on this page has not been searched. This page states what each authority held, not that it remains good law.

Frequently asked questions

Can I share a referral fee with a lawyer in Oklahoma?

Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, if three conditions are met. A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation, the client agrees to the arrangement and the agreement is confirmed in writing, and the total fee is reasonable.

Is there a cap on referral fees in Oklahoma?

Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable, and that the division be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer assume joint responsibility for the representation. Separately, 5 O.S. § 7 limits the attorney’s contingent fee contract with the client, not the division between lawyers: it shall be lawful for an attorney to contract for a percentage or portion of the proceeds of a client’s cause of action or claim not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of such judgment as may be recovered, or such compromise as may be made. In personal injury and wrongful death cases, such contracts are void and unenforceable if secured as a result of the intervention of any laymen, association, or corporation for compensation, or where any of them has an interest in the recovery (the statute is quoted in full below).

Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Oklahoma?

Yes. Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires, for every division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm, that the client agree to the arrangement and that the agreement be confirmed in writing. In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Smith (2024), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma found a violation of Rule 1.5(e)(2) where a lawyer paid the referring lawyer a $10,000 referral fee from a wrongful-death settlement and the client was unaware of the fee and did not agree in writing to the referral fee arrangement. In Garrett v. Bell (2023), the Court of Civil Appeals, noting the record did not show which version of the rule applied to each client’s arrangement, said that under the current Rule 1.5(e)(2) the clients are clearly required to agree in writing to the fee division arrangement.

Can an Oklahoma lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?

Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Which state’s rules apply when Oklahoma exercises its disciplinary authority is set by Rule 8.5(b) — for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction — and a lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral or fee division, and our searches (October 9, 2026) found no Oklahoma statute, court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b).

Sources

• Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, OSCN rule pages fetched October 9, 2026: Rule 1.5, Rule 5.4, Rule 7.2; Rule 8.5 (Internet Archive copy captured January 9, 2019)
• Former Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, in force until December 31, 2007, Internet Archive copies of OSCN pages: Rule 1.5, Rule 5.4, Rule 7.2
• Oklahoma Statutes, Internet Archive copies of OSCN pages: 5 O.S. § 7 (captured May 23, 2024), 21 O.S. § 591 (captured January 9, 2019)
• Cases and ethics opinion: linked in the tables above.

More states: Referral fee rules by state.

Disclaimer

This page summarizes a state’s rules on dividing fees between lawyers, from the primary sources it cites, as of the dates shown. It is general information for lawyers, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Rose Law Firm, PLLC dba LegalFlare. Rules and the way courts and bar authorities read them change. Read the cited sources, and check with the state bar or your own counsel, before relying on anything here.