Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

The critical question here is not whether a rogue lawyer can gouge, exploit, and
steal from
retainers are prudent or wise in any given situation (this should be left to the lawyers and
fully-informed clients to decide between
agreement that meets the Prof. Code
1.5ea)). 26 Rather , the critical inquiry is fraudulent or
nonrefundable retainers is nonetheless so corrosive as to require a per se prohibition.
answer to this question is a resounding no.
First, the , though at times mistaken about the proper
terminology used to , has always recognized
nonrefundable retainer that permits a lawyer to charge an
excessive fee. 27 That is , the , as with
arrangement, has always been subject to well-established professional rules that provide a
sufficient basis on
nonrefundable retainer" from a naIve client, does little or no work, and then, after being
fired, keeps the client's money. by-case rule against
charging excessive fees eRule 4-200 of the Rules of
longstanding rule requiring lawyers to refund
representation eRule of Professional Conduct 1. 16).
the existing protections against unreasonable and unconscionable fees demand that under
a nonrefundable retainer arrangement, if a
without cause, the client is entitled to a full refund.
Second, the Bar membership who have relied on these types of fee
have also recognized that there are unanticipated events, as there are in any contractual
26 Do
);
determine that a law license is not a permit to steal, pillage, and plunder?
27 A
200(A) of the Rules of
, and will be , evaluated for reasonableness. See, e. Rule
clients by charging unconscionable fees); South Carolina Rule 1. 16( d) ("The lawyer may
retain a
(explicitly
acknowledging the propriety of
fee was not "clearly excessive In the Matter of Scapa 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 635
*24 (Rev. Dept., 1993) (finding lawyers attempted to charge "unconscionable fees" under
Rule 4-200).
);
160