Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Restraining orders, fee forfeitures, and jeopardy assessments depriving clients of
the constitutional right to counsel of choice involve extremely complex areas of the law.
There are few lawyers in the state of California who
highly specialized areas. This is yet another important
experience by the drafters. Certainly the
who actually drafted the Rule, and most likely (as far as I can determine) the Commission
who no doubt are experienced in ethics issues, have no significant hands on
and the background to hold themselves
about the
necessary to pay attorney s fees in civil , (2) bogus jeopardy
36 often
assessments , that prevent the owner of
the funds from retaining counsel, (3) seizure or restraint of attorney fees after counsel is
retained by agencies , FBI and
Commission.
While
problems relating to fee forfeiture
existed under the now abandoned 2008 proposed Rule 1.5(f), so far as I can recall
have to this point discovered, the
legal and/or factual analysis purporting to support its claims that Rule
the fee
Governors will lack of
understanding and their erroneous unsupported conclusion about this significant problem
and (2) the fact
Proposed Rule 1.5(f) have not now been resolved by the Commission as it claims.
Proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2)(v) does not protect the client's entitlement to a refund of
the "nonrefundable" flat fee. Instead, the convoluted theoretically "nonrefundable " flat
fee structure created by the Commission in proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2) requiring lawyers and
clients to inaccurately describe that the fee is "the lawyer s property on receipt" actually
will prevent the client
36 These
, net
income, and the amount of tax due.
back at least to the 1960' s directed at people suspected of criminal conduct in the alleged
computation of the taxes theoretically owed. , on January 2 of a tax year
officers would seize $200 000 in cash
Franchise Tax Board agent would make the
the owner of the fund must have 000 in
state taxes. Therefore, they would base the jeopardy assessment for the two days of the
tax year on a theoretical profit of 2 million dollars and then seize the $200 000 recovered
by the police as the state or federal tax due. See detailed discussion at fn. 40 infra.
167