Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
poses many problems for the litigators handling complex civil matters). First, under the Proposal, criminal lawyers (as well as any civil with complex civil litigation or what the fees will be before being retained, without any meaningful analysis of the case. In practice, however, it is nearly impossible to accurately estimate the work that needs to be done in any reasonably complex case because, for example, no one really knows if the case will be tried or predict and advise the client about whether there will or will not be a trial, how long it will last, and how much work will be involved, the Proposal would require the lawyer and the client blindly agree to a flat fee that happen. This is necessary so that bargain for assistance in the midst of a proceeding. See Comment (S) and discussion at pp. 38- infra regarding exemption from this requirement if the "situation" is "adequately explained" to the client. If the client waives this requirement so that, for example, the trial fee or motion fee is not paid in advance, it creates a future restraint or forfeiture order as infra will prevent the remainder of the fee that was not deposited in advance, when no restraining order existed. Second, a practitioners is that while a refuses to make additional agreed payments required under a fee agreement or pay hourly fees, in criminal cases the lawyer after doing a able to withdraw e 32 In the criminal law context , in , particularly in relatively complicated, a lawyer being retained in order to assess the merits of the case and lawyer wants to take on the , for instance, a lawyer may receive some , a widespread practice is for the lawyer to be retained simply for the preliminary hearing in state court and the parties later decide whether the lawyer will continue after the lawyer learns about the case. 33 For this reason , practitioners in complex cases often use hybrid fees which might use a true retainer, a nonrefundable would cover the provision of legal e. pre-filing, discovery, pre-trial , trial , post-trial) of a nonrefundable retainers are often used as a partial payment in combination with fixed fee payments or hourly credits on the retainer. 164
true if the fee anything but an abstract, hypothetical fact pattern. In fact, in the case, after the first hung jury, the trial judge Ms. Abramson had to retry the client for the , for a flat fee, she would prepare and try the case. The fact she had case and 6 months during the first trial did not change Judge Stanley Weisberg s ruling. If this type of drafting experienced criminal defense lawyer, imagine what misfortunes will occur to the general practitioner who attempts to stumble through the morass of novel Rule Third, if the case does not result in trial (or the lawyer from determine what portion of the fee is refundable and whether this portion is paid with pre or post tax dollars. 34 These determinations are subject to dispute , fee arbitrations, and disciplinary proceedings. Fourth, as explained in , the Proposal exposes the nonrefundable" flat fees to forfeiture. Restraint, Fee Forfeiture, Seizure, Attachment Restraint or attempts to ' fees occurrence in state and federal court. Numerous articles have appeared in the legal press on the impact of fee forfeiture on the ability of clients to exercise their constitutional right to retain lawyers of their choice to represent them in serious criminal cases. For almost three decades, Bar Associations throughout the country concept of forfeiture or restraint of legal fees Amendment right to counsel concerned representatives of the potential fee forfeiture situations, it is particularly would pass rules that will greatly facilitate restraints on legal fees and deprive the citizen accused of private counsel of choice. Paragraph e , will impact lawyers including entertainment law, matrimonial/divorce, immigration law, civil litigation securities, tax, real estate, appellate, and criminal law. In fact, prohibiting nonrefundable 34 Lawyers pay income taxes , the lawyer would have to pay income tax on the flat fee paid when received from the client. 165
- 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 and 122: agreed hourly or by an whether the
- Page 123 and 124: " " On , Paragraph flat fees" as th
- Page 125 and 126: arrangement with the inclusion of a
- Page 127 and 128: agreement, that result in the refun
- Page 129: the Commission s proposed paragraph
- 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
- Page 173 and 174: COMMISSION FOR THE REVISION OF THE
- Page 175 and 176: Nothing in the intervening 75 years
- Page 177 and 178: Should it be Deposited?, 1 Fla. Coa
- Page 179 and 180: ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees (1) th
true if the fee<br />
anything but an abstract, hypothetical fact pattern. In fact, in the<br />
case, after the first hung jury, the trial judge<br />
Ms. Abramson had to retry the<br />
client for the , for a flat fee, she would<br />
prepare and try the case. The fact she had<br />
case and 6 months during the first trial did not change Judge Stanley Weisberg s ruling.<br />
If this type <strong>of</strong> drafting<br />
experienced criminal defense lawyer, imagine what misfortunes will occur to the general<br />
practitioner who attempts to stumble through the morass <strong>of</strong> novel<br />
Rule<br />
Third, if the case does not result in trial (or the lawyer<br />
from<br />
determine what portion <strong>of</strong> the fee is refundable and whether this portion is paid with pre<br />
or post tax dollars. 34 These determinations are subject to dispute , fee arbitrations, and<br />
disciplinary proceedings.<br />
Fourth, as explained in , the Proposal exposes the<br />
nonrefundable" flat fees to forfeiture.<br />
Restraint, Fee Forfeiture, Seizure, Attachment<br />
Restraint or attempts to ' fees<br />
occurrence in state and federal court. Numerous articles have appeared in the legal press<br />
on the impact <strong>of</strong> fee forfeiture on the ability <strong>of</strong> clients to exercise their constitutional right<br />
to retain lawyers <strong>of</strong> their choice to represent them in serious criminal cases. For almost<br />
three decades, Bar Associations throughout the country<br />
concept <strong>of</strong> forfeiture or restraint <strong>of</strong> legal fees<br />
Amendment right to counsel<br />
concerned representatives <strong>of</strong> the<br />
potential fee forfeiture situations, it is particularly<br />
would pass rules that will greatly facilitate restraints on legal fees and deprive the citizen<br />
accused <strong>of</strong> private counsel <strong>of</strong> choice.<br />
Paragraph e , will impact lawyers<br />
including entertainment law, matrimonial/divorce, immigration law, civil litigation<br />
securities, tax, real estate, appellate, and criminal law. In fact, prohibiting nonrefundable<br />
34 Lawyers pay income taxes<br />
, the lawyer<br />
would have to pay income tax on the flat fee paid when received from the client.<br />
165
Change language