Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

meeting reflects that there was no
members of the Board
discussion of Rule 1. 5 about whether the words unconscionable or unreasonable should
appear in
mentioned. The
different. However, at the November meeting, Rule 1.5(e) was approved by the Board of
Governors along with approximately 33 other Rules.
In December 2009, the
announcing that 35 revisions of the professional conduct rules won approval by the Board
of Governors. This after-the-fact
already endorsed the Proposal) was the only publicity I am aware
proposed draft Rule
and the article made no mention of the newly
prohibiting nonrefundable retainers. Rather, it only stated:
at its
revisions that . retain current standard
purposes, an ' unconscionable fee. ' The commission had been
adopting ABA' s standard that prohibits an ' unreasonable fee. ' (Rule 1.5).
Like the 10-page October 23 , 2009 "Executive Summary" submitted to the Board prior to
the November meeting, this article did not mention one word about the proposed Rule to
change the way , the
abolishment of nonrefundable retainers.
On November 16, 2009, the State Bar issued a press Board of
Governors has approved 35 revisions of the California Rules of Professional
Approximately one week later, I learned 5 made by the
Board of Governors. Since that time, I have discussed this matter with a cross-section of
the Bar membership from throughout California and have not found
aware that a decision about whether to
Board of Governors at its November 2009 meeting.
The Commission
Circulate The Proposal For Public Comment Before Adoption
Rule of the 10(A) ("Public Comment") requires Proposals for the
Rules of the State Bar of California to be "circulated for public comment before adoption
amendment, or repeal by the Board of Governors. " Section
Comment is not required:
( 1) to correct clerical errors, clarify grammar ( " or
147