CJ-2026-1155 - Daniel Chavarin v. Braden Turner

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: you don’t sue your lawyer unless something has gone so spectacularly wrong that the legal version of “I told you so” is the only revenge left. And in this case? Daniel Chavarin didn’t just get a bad result — he watched his entire lawsuit collapse into a smoldering pile of court-sanctioned failure because, allegedly, his own attorneys were too busy doing nothing to actually, you know, practice law. Two summary judgments entered against him — not because his case was weak, not because the facts were against him, but because his lawyers allegedly ignored discovery requests, blew deadlines, and let motions for summary judgment sail through unopposed. Now, he’s suing them for $150,000. And honestly? After reading this filing, we’re not even surprised.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Daniel Chavarin — an Oklahoma resident, presumably just a regular guy with a beef against a bunch of defendants (Cehand Properties, some individuals, and a couple of corporations) that we don’t fully know the details of, but clearly thought he had a shot in court. He hired lawyers — professionals — to fight his battle. On the other side: Braden Turner, an Oklahoma-licensed attorney, and his firm, Lai and Turner Law Firm, PLLC, based in Oklahoma County. These are the people entrusted with Chavarin’s legal fate. They were supposed to be the cavalry. Instead, according to the filing, they were more like the guys who showed up to the battlefield, took the horse, and then napped in the stable.

Here’s how this legal train wreck unfolded. In January 2024, Turner and his firm filed a lawsuit on Chavarin’s behalf in Tulsa County. So far, so good. But then — radio silence. Or at least, silence in the direction of the opposing party’s discovery requests. Discovery, for the uninitiated, is not some mystical ritual — it’s the part of litigation where both sides exchange information. You answer questions. You produce documents. You admit or deny certain facts. It’s basic stuff. But according to Chavarin, Turner’s firm didn’t do any of it. Specifically, they ignored Requests for Admission — which, in legal terms, is like ignoring a blinking red “DO THIS OR LOSE” sign. When you don’t respond to a Request for Admission, the facts in those requests are automatically considered admitted. That’s not a technicality. That’s a self-inflicted wound.

And sure enough, by April 2024, the other side — Cehand Properties and a few individuals — filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. That’s a move that says, “Your claims are dead, your facts are conceded, there’s no need for a trial.” The court agreed. On May 8, 2024, bam — summary judgment entered against Chavarin. His claims? Gone. His lawyers scrambled and filed a Motion to Vacate — basically, “Hey, can we try again?” But the court said no way. June 10, 2024 — denial. Case closed. Or so it seemed.

Wait — there’s more. Because Chavarin had other defendants in his original suit: ABW Tulsa, Inc. and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (referred to in the filing as “BO” — no explanation given, but we’re imagining some dramatic corporate alias). Their turn came in July 2025. They filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. And again — crickets from Turner’s office. No opposition. No response. Nothing. August 25, 2025 — another summary judgment granted. Another nail in the coffin. At this point, Chavarin’s case wasn’t just losing — it was legally erased, not by a jury, not by bad facts, but by the sheer inaction of the people he paid to protect him.

Now, why is he in court? Well, he’s not suing over the original dispute anymore — that ship has sailed. Now he’s suing his lawyers. And he’s throwing the entire legal kitchen sink at them. First up: negligence. In plain English? “You were supposed to act like a lawyer, and you didn’t.” Lawyers have a duty to use reasonable care — to meet deadlines, file motions, respond to discovery. Turner allegedly failed on all counts. Second: breach of contract. Chavarin hired these attorneys. He presumably paid them. There was an agreement — you represent me, I pay you. But the contract also includes an unspoken promise: don’t screw this up. And by failing to do the bare minimum of legal work, they allegedly broke that promise.

Then it gets spicy. Breach of fiduciary duty. This isn’t just about bad lawyering — it’s about betrayal. Lawyers are fiduciaries, which means they’re supposed to put their client’s interests above their own. They’re supposed to be loyal, honest, and proactive. Chavarin claims Turner prioritized his own convenience over his client’s rights — letting deadlines pass, letting judgments enter, all while saying nothing. And finally — fraud. That’s a big word. But here, it’s not about lying on a tax return. It’s about misrepresentation. Chavarin says Turner made it seem like the case was being handled — that things were moving, that deadlines were met — when in reality, nothing was happening. And because Chavarin believed that, he didn’t fire them and hire someone else. He stayed put — and lost everything.

So what does he want? $150,000. Split right down the middle: $75,000 in actual damages (the value of the claims he lost, plus emotional distress), and another $75,000 in punitive damages — which aren’t about compensation, but punishment. This is the “you messed up so badly that we need to slap you hard enough to make other lawyers pay attention” number. Is $150,000 a lot? In the grand scheme of lawsuits, it’s not massive. But for a case that allegedly collapsed due to pure negligence — no court appearances, no filings, no communication — it’s a pretty reasonable price tag for professional incompetence. And let’s be real: if you’re a client who thought you were being represented and found out your lawyer ghosted your case twice, $150K might feel like the least you deserve.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the negligence — though that’s jaw-dropping enough. It’s the audacity of letting two separate motions for summary judgment go unanswered. One? Maybe a tragic mistake. A missed email. A paralegal on vacation. But two? Months apart? Against different defendants? That’s not a mistake. That’s a pattern. That’s a law firm operating like it’s immune to calendars. And the fraud claim? That’s the dagger. If Chavarin can prove Turner knew the case was falling apart and kept telling him everything was fine — that’s not just malpractice. That’s legal betrayal with a smile.

We’re not rooting for blood. But we are rooting for accountability. Because if lawyers can ignore discovery, miss deadlines, lose cases by default, and just shrug it off, then the whole system starts to look like a rigged game. Chavarin didn’t lose in court — he was abandoned in court. And in the wild world of civil disputes, where most cases are about messy relationships or petty grudges, this one cuts deeper. It’s not about money or property. It’s about trust. And when the person you hire to fight for you won’t even show up to the fight? That’s when you know it’s time to sue the suit.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Donald E. Smolen, II

SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Daniel Chavarin individual
Rep: Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944

Defendants

Braden Turner individual
Lai and Turner Law Firm, PLLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	negligence	Defendants' negligence led to the entry of summary judgments against Plaintiff's claims.
2	breach of contract	Defendants failed to perform their contractual obligations, leading to the entry of summary judgments against Plaintiff's claims.
3	breach of fiduciary duty	Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, leading to the entry of summary judgments against Plaintiff's claims.
4	fraud	Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiff concerning the status, handling, and prosecution of Plaintiff's claims.
5	punitive damages	Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants for their intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct.

Petition Text

1,392 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DANIEL CHAVARIN, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. BRADEN TURNER, an Individual, and LAI AND TURNER LAW FIRM, PLLC, a Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2026-1155 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Daniel Chavarin, an individual, by and through his attorney of record, SMOLEN LAW, PLLC, and for his causes of action against Defendants Braden Turner, and Lai and Turner Law Firm, PLLC, sets forth and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Daniel Chavarin is a resident of the State of Oklahoma and resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Braden Turner (hereinafter “Turner”) is an attorney who was at all times relevant to this lawsuit licensed to practice law in the State of Oklahoma (Bar #34933) and practices in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Upon information and belief that will be confirmed through discovery, Braden Turner resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Lai and Turner Law Firm, PLLC, is an Oklahoma Professional Limited Liability Company organized and duly existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 4. The acts, occurrences, and omissions complained of herein occurred within the judicial confines of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter, and venue is proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 6. Paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated herein by reference. 7. Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to act as his attorney regarding his claim against Cehand Properties, LLC, Tommy Cehand, Kimberly Cehand, AWB Tulsa, Inc., and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO). The procedural history is as follows: a) On January 19, 2024, Defendants filed an action in Tulsa County, Case No.: CJ-2024-00214; b) On April 12, 2024, Cehand Properties, LLC, Tommy Cehand, and Kimberly Cehand filed a Motion for Summary Judgment after Defendants failed to respond to Cehand’s discovery requests, including Requests for Admission. c) On May 8, 2024, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of Cehand Properties, LLC, Tommy Cehand, and Kimberly Cehand; d) On May 17, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate; e) On June 10, 2024, the Court denied the Motion to Vacate; f) On July 15, 2025, ABW Tulsa, Inc. and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment; g) On August 25, 2025, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of ABW Tulsa, Inc. and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO); h) Throughout the course of this litigation, Defendants repeatedly failed to comply with applicable deadlines, directly resulting in the entry of two summary judgments against Defendants’ client and in favor of opposing parties. k) Therefore, Defendants’ failures were fatal to Plaintiff’s claims. 8. The breach by Defendants was the actual and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 9. As a result of this negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). CAUSES OF ACTION I. Negligence 10. Paragraphs 1-9 are incorporated herein by reference. 11. As a result of the attorney-client relationship created between Plaintiff and the Defendants, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care, the knowledge and skill possessed by other similarly situated individuals in the industry, and diligence to litigate the Plaintiff’s case to ensure a favorable outcome in the litigation. 12. Defendants breached this duty by failing to timely litigate and defend the case with due diligence. 13. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary, reasonable, and proper assistance to the Plaintiff regarding the claim against him. 14. Defendants’ breach of this duty is the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. 15. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including, but not limited to, judgment against him, the loss of the value of his claim against Cehand Properties, Tommy Cehand, Kimberly Cehand, ABW Tulsa, Inc., and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO), mental pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.) II. Breach of Contract 16. Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid and enforceable attorney-client agreement pursuant to which Defendants agreed to represent Plaintiff in his claim against Cehand Properties, LLC, Tommy Cehand, Kimberly Cehand, AWB Tulsa, Inc., and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO) with reasonable care, skill, diligence, and in compliance with court rules and deadlines. 18. Under the terms of the contract, Defendants expressly and implicitly agreed to perform legal services competently, diligently, timely, and in accordance with applicable standards of professional conduct and procedural rules. 19. Plaintiff fully performed all obligations required of him under the contract, including but not limited to cooperating with Defendants and paying all requested legal fees and costs. 20. Defendants materially breached the attorney-client contract by: a) Failing to respond to discovery requests and Requests for Admission; b) Failing to comply with court-ordered and procedural deadlines; c) Failing to timely respond to and defend against dispositive motions; d) Allowing summary judgments to be entered against Plaintiff due solely to Defendants’ inaction and lack of diligence; and e) Failing to prosecute Plaintiff’s claims in a reasonably competent and professional manner. 21. Defendants’ breaches deprived Plaintiff of the benefit of the bargain and resulted in the entry of summary judgments against Plaintiff. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). III. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 23. Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated herein by reference. 24. At all relevant times, Defendants owed Plaintiff fiduciary duties of loyalty, honesty, good faith, full disclosure, and the duty to act in Plaintiff’s best interests. 25. Defendants breached these fiduciary duties by: a) Failing to diligently protect Plaintiff’s legal interests by complying with mandatory deadlines and procedural requirements; b) Placing Defendants’ own interests or convenience above Plaintiff’s interests. c) Allowing Plaintiff’s claims to be extinguished through avoidable adverse rulings. 26. Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty were willful, reckless, and undertaken with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and interests. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). IV. Fraud 28. Paragraphs 1-27 are incorporated herein by reference. 29. Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiff concerning the status, handling, and prosecution of Plaintiff’s claims against Cehand Properties, LLC, Tommy Cehand, Kimberly Cehand, AWB Tulsa, Inc., and ADW Tulsa, Inc. (BO). 30. Defendants represented, expressly and implicitly, that they were actively litigating Plaintiff’s case, complying with discovery obligations and court deadlines, and protecting Plaintiff’s legal interests, when in fact Defendants had failed to respond to discovery, failed to meet mandatory deadlines, and failed to oppose dispositive motions. 31. Defendants knowingly made these misrepresentations, with the intent that Plaintiff rely upon them and refrain from taking action to protect his legal rights, including retaining substitute counsel. 32. Defendants further concealed and failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiff, including the existence and consequences of missed deadlines, unanswered discovery requests, and the substantial risk that Plaintiff’s claims would be dismissed or adjudicated against him as a result of Defendants’ inaction. 33. Defendants had a duty to disclose these material facts to Plaintiff arising from the attorney-client relationship and Defendants’ fiduciary obligations. 34. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and omissions to his detriment. 35. Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). V. Punitive Damages 37. Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein by reference. 38. The intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct of Defendants in disregard to Plaintiff and others was conducted with full knowledge, in that Defendants knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of its action upon Plaintiff and others. 39. Such actions were not only detrimental to Plaintiff but to the public in general. 40. Defendants acted intentionally, maliciously, and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages against Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter judgment against Defendant Braden Turner and Defendant Lai and Turner Law Firm and grant him the relief sought, including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), costs, pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, punitive damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), post-judgment interest, and all other relief deemed just and appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 611 S. Detroit Ave. Tulsa, OK 74120 P: (918) 777-4LAW (4529) F: (918) 890-4529 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff