Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

fee is "the lawyer s property on receipt") that is artificially
character of funds that are actually not "earned when received. " The
forfeiture or restraining order situations is not what the fee is called in a fee agreement
but who in reality owns the funds. The only way
services and the lawyer is
involved in a bankruptcy, SEC, criminal or jeopardy tax situation, or has
creditors, is if there is a nonrefundable assignment or absolute transfer of the funds. This
is the key principle of defense
restraint, and forfeiture.
40 When the client maintains the right to the funds before they are
used, the state, the SEC, and IRS, or the bankruptcy lawyers or
prosecuting agencies could and will
client' s property and therefore it can be seized and forfeited.
The Proposal enhances the risk of seizure, restraint, attachment, and/or forfeiture
of legal fees. If a fee paid to a , it is the property of the
lawyer. The client's right to have
nonrefundable retainers mandates that
a forfeiture proceeding under 18 C. ~~ 981 and 982 to the extent that the lawyer can
show an interest as an owner. 18 C. ~ 981(2).
California law provides for various forms of asset restraint and/or
insurance and health fraud cases. See g., California Penal Code ~
It also provides for See
California Health and Safety Code ~ , the legislature
has provided that lawyers may
that the fee is "solely owned by a " Cal. Penal
~ 186.7(a).
40
See Buker v. Superior Court 25 Cal. App. 3d
involving an "irrevocable assignment " the equivalent of a , in a
jeopardy assessment case, enabling the client to receive representation and the lawyer to
maintain the fee); People v. Vermouth, supra 42 Cal. App. 3d at 359. and People
Vermouth 42 Cal. App. 3d 353 , 359 (1974) (reversing conviction holding that the trial
court deprived the defendants of their right to be
choice by failing to s irrevocable assignment
(treated as a nonrefundable retainer) of the seized funds that had priority over the IRS
lien). This
clients ' constitutional right to representation by a lawyer of their choice while collecting
their fee. See also Tarlow Criminal Defendants and Abuse of Jeopardy Tax Procedures
22 UCLA L. Rev.
169