Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

charging hourly rates eby padding their bills or charging
inexperienced lawyers spending endless hours on a simple legal matter see, e.
Ethics Op. 1996- 147 (billing clients for work
time)), there is no effort by the
negotiation of fee contracts is still left to
exceptions.
accounts did not result in an effort to abolish trust accounts.
The unconscionable fee limitation in Rule
the crooked lawyer and (2) , in the
demonstrable abuses that can be remedied by a ban, the primary concern of the State Bar
ought to be the protection of the interests of clients and lawyers and not, for example, the
generation of
income from interest earned on lawyers' trust accounts.
Significant Problems Created by the Proposal for Many Members of the Bar
and Their Clients
When presenting the , the
Commission stated:
During the public comment period, members of the California criminal
31 disagreed
defense bar and some of their representative organizations
700(D)(2) and Washington Rule
Exh. 1 to the Executive Summary) at p. 69.
Introduction e
30 The motivation for the original proposed changes that were rejected in
certain groups within the State Bar wanted to require lawyers to move funds from their
general accounts to their trust
receive the interest earned on lawyers ' trust accounts. See, e.
g.,
g.,
Cal.
April 28 , 1997 Letter
from Barry Tarlow to , fn. 6.
appeared nowhere in the similar and later rejected , it seemed apparent at
the time that those proposals
proposals. While funding of
Bar, it
There appears to be no
changes were motivated by some different reason or a simple
nonrefundable retainers have worked in the actual practice of law in California since the
19th
31 The Commission s effort to characterize the opponents of the Proposal as members of
the criminal defense bar ignores the fact that the public commenters, opponents , and
162