Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

that a "true retainer" fee would be , (3) that a fixed or flat fee
permitted subject to compliance with stated
in Washington s proposed Rule 1.5(f)(2).
2008 meeting. II The Proposal is the result
Drafters' Clear Intent Is To Abolish The Nonrefundable Retainer
The Proposal begins with the statement that a lawyer "cannot make an agreement
for, charge, or collect a nonrefundable fee, except. . ." This language
Commission l2 clear intent to abolish , nonrefundable retainers, advance
when received, and minimum
below). The Commission s intent is also apparent
Commission members and drafters during the drafting of the Proposal and demonstrates a
myopic focus on
custom and legal principles. They state, for example:
a true retainer which means it genuinely is earned upon receipt in return for
the lawyer making himself or herself available to provide legal services for
a period of time. (August 15, 2008 email
consultant Mohr);
... I suggest , namely, prohibiting the
designation of a fee to a
refundable. (August 16, 2008
Sondheim);
II The August 2008 drafting
restrictions (in the rule or in the
comments) on what lawyers can or cannot say to their clients to avoid misleading clients
about the , proposed Washington Rule 1.5(g)).
Commission Meeting Notes of August 29- , 2008
abandoned by the Commission after they failed to pass in Washington.
12 " The Commission" refers to the Special
Professional Conduct, chaired by Harry
the 1991 Commission that 100 (Preserving
Identity of Funds and Property of a Client) and Rule 3-700 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct (Termination of
future services, including nonrefundable retainers, fees earned , and
minimum fees.
proposed 1991 amendments, which were ultimately withdrawn.
152