aspects of their practices while preserving the established professional aspects of the personal relationship between the professional person and those he serves.” Okla. Stat. tit. 18, § 802 (emphasis added); Am. Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Shawnee v. Clarke & Van Wagner, Inc., 692 P.2d 61, 66 (Okla.App.1984). The PEA makes clear that it does not shield professionals from lawsuits brought by clients of the professional, even when the alleged wrongful action was performed in the scope of employment. See id. § 812 (“This act does not alter any law applicable to the relationship between a person rendering professional services and a person receiving such services, including liability arising out of such professional services”); Am. Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Shawnee, 692 P.2d at 67 (<HOLDING>). Neither the PEA nor Oklahoma case law appears
holding that to find abandonment rather than merely neglect there must be proof that the attorneyduring a given time periodwas required to accomplish specific professional tasks for the client failed to accomplish those tasks and failed to communicate with the client and that the proof must objectively indicate that the attorney has deserted rejected andor relinquished the professional responsibilities owed to the client holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that individual attorneys and professional corporation were liable for excessive fees retained and owed to client holding that tcprc section 380018 authorizing recovery of attorneys fees against individual or corporation does not provide for award of attorneys fees against limited partnership holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law