Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

may well be subject to seizure under the criminal or civil process. 41 Therefore , in many
situations the attorney will lose a fee, the client will lose the ability to pay for an attorney
of his choice, and in federal criminal prosecutions
appearance in court is often not , the lawyer may be
complete all the remaining legal services without pay.
If the client does not deposit the trial fee or a
required by supra it creates an additional
problem. A subsequent
the necessary fee to the lawyer who unfortunately has become attorney of record.
A client' s funds that are deposited in a trust or general account under this Proposal
will always be
potential creditors.
forfeiture or civil seizure because it will be impossible for an attorney who holds a fixed
fee payment in trust, or who has deposited it in a general account even when it is owned
by the client, to assert that he
knowledge. Therefore, compliance with the proposed rule and amendments will make it
impossible for a client to be represented by counsel of choice in many criminal or civil
cases.
41
);
eliminate the problem. Under the Proposal, and the applicable forfeiture and property law
concepts, the , not the lawyer. Therefore, it
would be subject to seizure or restraint under applicable criminal law principles and also
probably by the S. C under s.E.e. v. Interlink Data Network of Los Angeles 77 F.
1201 , 1205 (9th
rendered remains property of client for purposes of
are subject to freeze on client' s assets). See also HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank 61 F.3d
1054 (2d Cir. 1995) (attorneys compelled by creditors to disgorge $750 000 paid as legal
fees as "fraudulent conveyances United States v. Vincent unpublished. No. 93- 10769
(9th Cir. 1995) (advance fee for post-conviction appeal ordered disgorged to pay criminal
restitution as asset of client and not property of attorney).
42
See Caplin Drysdale Chartered v. United States 109 S. Ct. 2646 (1989); United
States v. Monsanto 109 S.Ct 2657 (1989) (upholding the constitutionality of government
forfeiture of attorneys ' fees); People v. Superior Court, (Clements), 200 Cal. App. 3d 491
(1988) ' fees under California
forfeiture statute).
170