Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
nonrefundable retainer "more palatable" to their critics. 15 This novel and convoluted fee arrangement appears at first to nonrefundable" flat fee which constitute() complete payment for those services" so long as agreement that states , " in a manner that can easily be understood by the client " a number of things including: "(v) that the client may be entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if the agreed-upon legal services have not been completed." The paragraph (e )(2) is that if any portion nonrefundable" fee "may be" refundable, then the entire fee cannot be the lawyer s property. The less obvious but equally troubling problem is that when read in context of the entire Rule and Comment (S), Paragraph (e)(2) would often require that the presumably nonrefundable" flat fee l6 Particularly in including trial. , since this flat fee is contingencies eLe. trial or reasonably predicted prior to being retained, the significant portion of the flat fee that covers these contingencies is refundable, at least until the time that occur. If the trial or the case resolved before trial, the fees that would have have to be refunded (either on a pre-tax or post-tax basis) 17 15 Following public comment in 2008 , there memoranda between the drafting subcommittee criticism of the 5et) (prior attempt to retainers). Among them is an August 13, 2008 Memorandum from Paul Vapnek to the members of the Commission where he asks whether there is anything the Commission could do to "make the bitter pill more palatable to our critics?" 16 See detailed discussion at pp. 27- infra. 17 Lawyers may have to pay income tax on the "nonrefundable" flat fee paid when received from the client even though it may be refundable. 18 One flat fee" or " fixed fee" that is earned when received is to assure the client in advance that the fee will be no more than a particular amount. Many clients who have become relatively sophisticated consumers of legal services do not want fees calculated or based determined based on fixed values for differently and the " fixed fee" is often an educated but fair estimate, since there is no way to determine how or when, for example, a civil litigation or criminal case will be resolved. 156
" " On , Paragraph flat fees" as the nonrefundable effort to dress up the ban on palatable to the critics fails and client. See discussion in section (E) below with section (e The Proposal is A Solution in Search of A Problem. The Proposal problem. There simply from the which would be remedied by ~ change. With , the , I Commission offers a one-sentence rationale ancient cases: Paragraph (e) has no Commission nonrefundable fee is inimical to California s strong policy of 19 In support , the seventy-plus year old nonrefundable retainers; rather, they both dealt with the unconscionability standard. See Agenda Item re: Proposed New and Amended Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, Batches 1 , 2, and 3 - , Attachment 1 64 (October 23 , 2009); Herrscher v. State Bar Cal. 2d 399, 402 (1934) and Goldstone v. State Bar 214 Cal. 490, 498 (1931). was: 20 The Although we professional services may with judgment of the attorney performing the services, we are of the opinion that if a fee is charged so exorbitant and wholly disproportionate to the services performed as to shock the called, such a case warrants disciplinary action by this court. 20 The ABA Model nonrefundable fees" and "earned upon receipt fees. See also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE 944, cmt.(fJ (2000) ("if a payment to a lawyer is a flat fee paid in advance rather deposit out of which fees will be paid as they , the payment belongs to the lawyer" and need not be deposited in a client trust account). 157
- Page 71 and 72: 105
- Page 73 and 74: 107
- Page 75 and 76: 109
- Page 77 and 78: 111
- Page 79 and 80: 113
- Page 81 and 82: 115
- Page 83 and 84: 117
- Page 85 and 86: STROOCK April 2, 2010 Michael F. Pe
- Page 87 and 88: MORTIMER L. LASKI' KENNETH G. GORDO
- Page 89 and 90: Mr. Howard Miller April 8 , 2010 Pa
- Page 91 and 92: 125
- Page 93 and 94: 127
- Page 95 and 96: 129
- Page 97 and 98: 131
- Page 99 and 100: unaware 2 of this new rule or that
- Page 101 and 102: BARRY TARLow. BLAIR BERK MARK O. HE
- Page 103 and 104: 4, The Proposal a. Comment b. 5. Th
- Page 105 and 106: arrangement, has always been subjec
- Page 107 and 108: (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Par
- Page 109 and 110: edefines a widely accepted , and in
- Page 111 and 112: alone seek to prohibit , no version
- Page 113 and 114: meeting reflects that there was no
- Page 115 and 116: II. ANAL YSIS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PR
- Page 117 and 118: Responsibility and Conduct 10 They
- Page 119 and 120: . . " " I suggest we . . . have a c
- Page 121: agreed hourly or by an whether the
- Page 125 and 126: arrangement with the inclusion of a
- Page 127 and 128: agreement, that result in the refun
- Page 129 and 130: the Commission s proposed paragraph
- Page 131 and 132: true if the fee anything but an abs
- Page 133 and 134: Restraining orders, fee forfeitures
- Page 135 and 136: fee is "the lawyer s property on re
- Page 137 and 138: Under the revised Proposal, the fee
- Page 139 and 140: Similarly, the accepts one case tha
- Page 141 and 142: minimum fee that is a payments or a
- Page 143 and 144: Champion (May 2004); Tarlow Fee For
- Page 145 and 146: July 10, 2007 Memo from the Board o
- Page 147 and 148: the work has been completed and aft
- Page 149 and 150: '-- 183
- Page 151 and 152: BIOGRAPHY Page scholar " the "ultim
- Page 153 and 154: 187
- Page 157 and 158: Date: April 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM To:
- Page 159 and 160: 193
- Page 161 and 162: 195
- Page 163 and 164: 197
- Page 165 and 166: 199
- Page 167 and 168: 201
- Page 169 and 170: the country. The issue is of substa
- Page 171 and 172: □ ABA Model Rule substantially ad
nonrefundable retainer "more palatable" to their critics.<br />
15 This novel and convoluted fee<br />
arrangement appears at first to nonrefundable" flat fee which<br />
constitute() complete payment for those services" so long as<br />
agreement that states<br />
, "<br />
in a manner that can easily be understood <strong>by</strong> the client " a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> things including: "(v) that the client may be entitled to a refund <strong>of</strong> a portion <strong>of</strong> the fee<br />
if the agreed-upon legal services have not been completed." The<br />
paragraph (e )(2) is that if any portion nonrefundable" fee "may be" refundable, then<br />
the entire fee cannot be the lawyer s property.<br />
The less obvious but equally troubling problem is that when read in context <strong>of</strong> the<br />
entire Rule and Comment (S), Paragraph (e)(2) would <strong>of</strong>ten require that the presumably<br />
nonrefundable" flat fee<br />
l6 Particularly in<br />
including trial.<br />
, since this flat fee is<br />
contingencies eLe. trial or<br />
reasonably predicted prior to being retained, the significant portion <strong>of</strong> the flat fee that<br />
covers these contingencies is refundable, at least until the time that<br />
occur. If the<br />
trial or the case resolved before trial, the fees that would have<br />
have to be refunded (either on a pre-tax or post-tax basis) 17<br />
15 Following public comment in 2008 , there<br />
memoranda between the drafting subcommittee<br />
criticism <strong>of</strong> the 5et) (prior attempt to<br />
retainers). Among them is an August 13, 2008 Memorandum from Paul Vapnek to the<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the Commission where he asks whether there is anything the Commission<br />
could do to "make the bitter pill more palatable to our critics?"<br />
16<br />
See detailed discussion at pp. 27- infra.<br />
17 Lawyers<br />
may have to pay income tax on the "nonrefundable" flat fee paid when received from the<br />
client even though it may be refundable.<br />
18 One<br />
flat fee" or " fixed fee" that is earned when received is to<br />
assure the client in advance that the fee will be no more than a particular amount. Many<br />
clients who have become relatively sophisticated consumers <strong>of</strong> legal services do not want<br />
fees calculated or based<br />
determined based on fixed values for<br />
differently and the " fixed fee" is <strong>of</strong>ten an educated but fair estimate, since there is no way<br />
to determine how or when, for example, a civil litigation or<br />
criminal case will be resolved.<br />
156