The Alaska Supreme Court issued an opinion January 23, 2026, in Leroy Oenga, Jr. v. Maria M. Givens, addressing two novel legal questions about mandatory arbitration of attorney's fee disputes. The case stems from a fee arbitration panel's decision regarding a dispute where the heirs to an Alaska Native allotment negotiated a contingency fee agreement with an attorney who successfully sued the federal government.
The high court examined how much deference courts should give to an arbitration panel's decision to narrow the scope of issues presented for review. The justices also considered whether, when an arbitration panel's decision is challenged in superior court under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, the court is permitted to award attorney's fees that are necessarily incurred in post-arbitration proceedings.
The case involves Leroy Oenga, Jr., who serves as appellant, and Maria M. Givens, who acts as personal representative of the estate of Raymond C. Givens. The dispute originated from legal representation involving an Alaska Native allotment where heirs entered into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney. That attorney subsequently filed a successful lawsuit against the federal government for mismanaging oil and gas resources.
The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court through an appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska's Second Judicial District in Utqiaġvik. Superior Court Judge Paul A. Roetman presided over the lower court proceedings.
Rachel B. Lauesen of The Lauesen Law Team, LLC in Anchorage represented the appellant, while Russell L. Winner of Winner & Associates, P.C., also in Anchorage, appeared for the appellee. The opinion was authored by Justice Pate, with Chief Justice Carney and Justices Borghesan and Henderson participating. Justice Oravec did not participate in the decision.
The legal questions presented to the court center on the intersection of attorney's fee disputes and arbitration law. Alaska, like many states, has established mandatory arbitration procedures for certain types of attorney's fee disputes as an alternative to traditional court litigation. These procedures are designed to provide a more efficient and cost-effective means of resolving fee disagreements between attorneys and clients.
The Revised Uniform Arbitration Act governs arbitration proceedings in Alaska and provides the framework for challenging arbitration decisions in court. Under the RUAA, parties have limited grounds for challenging arbitration awards, and courts generally give significant deference to arbitrators' decisions.
The case highlights the complex legal issues that can arise when Alaska Native allotments are involved in federal litigation. Alaska Native allotments are parcels of land that were granted to individual Alaska Natives under various federal laws in the early 20th century. These allotments often contain valuable natural resources, including oil and gas, which are subject to federal management and oversight.
When attorneys represent Alaska Native allotment holders in litigation against the federal government for resource mismanagement, significant attorney's fees can be at stake. The contingency fee arrangements common in such cases mean that attorneys typically receive a percentage of any recovery, which can result in substantial fees when federal settlements or judgments are involved.
The arbitration panel's decision to narrow the scope of issues under review appears to have been a central point of contention in the case. This raises important questions about the authority of arbitration panels to limit the matters they consider and the appropriate level of judicial deference to such decisions.
The second question regarding post-arbitration attorney's fees addresses a practical concern that arises when arbitration decisions are challenged in court. If parties must incur additional legal expenses to challenge an arbitration award, courts must determine whether those fees can be recovered as part of the overall fee dispute resolution.
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely provide important guidance for future attorney's fee arbitrations in Alaska. The court's resolution of these novel questions will establish precedent for how courts should approach similar disputes involving the scope of arbitration review and post-arbitration fee awards.
The case also underscores the ongoing legal complexities surrounding Alaska Native allotments and federal resource management. As these lands continue to produce valuable resources, disputes over legal representation and fee arrangements in related litigation are likely to continue arising.
The opinion, designated as Supreme Court No. S-19136 and Superior Court No. 2BA-23-00111 CI, is subject to correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter. The Alaska appellate courts have requested that readers bring any errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts in Anchorage.
This decision represents the latest development in the evolving area of attorney's fee dispute resolution in Alaska, particularly in cases involving significant federal litigation and Alaska Native land rights. The court's analysis of arbitration deference and post-arbitration fee awards will likely influence how similar disputes are handled in Alaska's legal system going forward.