with whom HODGES, LAVENDER and SUMMERS, Justices, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with much of the discussion of summary judgment. However, as the majority notes, certiorari was granted to address the standard for measuring legal malpractice. In Wabaunsee v. Harris, 610 P.2d 782, 784 (Okla.1980) we held that an error of judgment or a mistake in a point of law not settled by a court of last resort, and upon which there is some reasonable doubt, will not support an action for legal malpractice. The evidentiary materials in this case coupled with the current controlling precedent presents a question to me of whether there are any “material facts” at issue,1 and if *1315there can be any liability without overruling Wabaunsee.
. Footnote # 1 of the majority opinion provides:
"The parties agree that the question of law regarding the consent of working interest owners under the JOA has never been decided by this Court."