Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

edefines a widely accepted , and in reality will
most payments to do legal work in the future will not be earned when received regardless
of the attempts in Rule the lawyer
property upon receipt." , in violation of the theoretical rationale for
abolishing nonrefundable retainers, it leaves in place in Rule
fee that is a "true retainer.
I. THE COMMISSION OBTAINED THE BOARD OF GOVERNOR'
ENDORSEMENT OF THE 2009 PROPOSAL
Many lawyers in California share my
that resulted in the Board of Governors' passage of Rule 1.5(e)(1) and (2). The concern
focuses on the lack of any prior opportunity to
that was approved by the Board of , 2009. Prior to
being sent out for final
Board of Governors, the
should have been given the opportunity to: (I) submit
was
controversial, novel, and literally unprecedented change to the Rules.
Lack of Notice/Process Surrounding Commission s Abandoned 2008 Proposal
To Prohibit Nonrefundable Fees
The Commission
effectively informing the Bar membership of its attempt to do so.
209-page Discussion Draft of 13 proposed
conduct (including the prior proposed Rule 1.5(t) banning nonrefundable retainers) on the
State Bar website, the Commission s 2008 proposal to ban nonrefundable
not meaningfully publicized. As discussed below, for example, posting a short article in
the May 2008 California Bar Journal related to the Commission s proposed revisions to
13 Rules of Professional Conduct that did not mention this radical change.
I only discovered this specific provision after reading the May 2008 edition of the
California Bar Journal about the Commission s proposed revisions to
Professional Conduct, and learned
2008, I was
2008, after printing and reviewing 209 pages of information from the website regarding
all 13 Rules, that I first noticed the
not recall at the time seeing anything on the Bar s home page about existing Rule 4-200
to be revised as Rule 1. 5(t) that would abolish nonrefundable retainers.
143