Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Under the revised Proposal, the fee continues to belong to the client until earned<br />
unless it fits in the very narrow definition <strong>of</strong> "true retainer" (which in real life experience<br />
and in the case law, is rarely, if ever, a substantial amount compared to what would be<br />
necessary for a civil or See Proposed new Rule<br />
discussion on pp. 16- supra regarding the Proposal' s ban on nonrefundable<br />
Although a narrow<br />
nonrefundable" flat fee defined as the "complete payment" for "specified legal services<br />
(meaning the entire representation in a case, including trial see discussion at pp. 38infra<br />
about Comment (5)), such a , forfeiture, restraint or<br />
attachment resulting from a civil, criminal, or an SEC process. This will occur<br />
significant portion <strong>of</strong> the Proposal' s "nonrefundable" flat fee (that covers all services that<br />
are contingent upon the , i.e. trial) is<br />
because it is not in<br />
43 The controlling<br />
lawyer s property.<br />
the controlling factor not<br />
describe the transaction and is inserted to prevent seizure or restraint <strong>of</strong> legal fees.<br />
Even if the Board <strong>of</strong> Governors<br />
in public<br />
sophisticated area <strong>of</strong> the law about the impact <strong>of</strong> this Proposal, it will still subject lawyers<br />
to an enormous risk, extensive extrinsic litigation, and the unpalatable option <strong>of</strong> hiring a<br />
separate attorney to represent the client and his lawyer <strong>of</strong> choice in a separate restraining<br />
order, fee forfeiture or jeopardy<br />
reason to depart from the proven<br />
retainers as a result <strong>of</strong> 40 years <strong>of</strong><br />
litigation, the unsupported assertions <strong>of</strong> the Commission that 1. 5( e) has<br />
restraint/forfeiture problems will eventually be embraced <strong>by</strong> the federal and state courts.<br />
The additional advantage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
having the fee earned in advance, the lawyer can , if the fee<br />
legitimate when received, they will not risk generally forfeiting the fee if they "learn too<br />
much" about the client's source <strong>of</strong> , therefore, will not face any<br />
to thoroughly investigating the See Caplin Drysdale, supra 491 U. S. at 632<br />
n.10.<br />
43 When<br />
this portion <strong>of</strong><br />
nonrefundable" flat fee will likely have to be placed into a trust account.<br />
171