Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Proposal Is Unsupported By the ABA Model Rule, Any Consensus in the States, or the Washington Rule. The Proposal lacks support from either the ABA Model Rules or any consensus in the states. Nonrefundable retainers states (if not reject(ing) the ABA Model Rule see Dashboard attached as Exh. Summary, the Proposal fails to "eliminate and avoid unnecessary California and other states. See Commission Charter. 47 By " substantially Model Rule, the Commission claims that the Proposal relies on and is supported by the Washington Rule. 48 Model Rule misplaced. See Table of Commission s Explanation of Changes to the ABA The Commission s claim Washington Rule (Rule 1.5(f) s Rules of see Dashboard and Introduction to nonrefundable fees, advance fees, and fees earned when received are not prohibited under the Washington Rule. This fact is Rule, (b) the Washington Supreme Court' s rejection of the proposal to ban the use of the terms "nonrefundable earned upon receipt " and "minimum " (c) the fact Washington Rule does not even mention the word "nonrefundable " and (d) the fact that Washington previously had no rule , the Washington Rule has little, if any, application to the stated purpose of the Commission Proposal. Rather than preventing lawyers from "charging or collecting a nonrefundable fee" as the Proposal seeks to do, the Washington Rule instead was intended to (a) change the rule that required lawyers to place a fee for future services in their trust accounts and (b) impose standards requiring lawyers to inform the client about the nature arrangements since Washington ~uiring lawyers to set out and explain the fee See 47 See fn. 25 supra. 48 In August of 2008 when the Washington Rule, the so-called See Commission Meeting Notes of August 29- , 2008 meeting. The Washington Rule took effect on November 18, 2008. 49 At Professional Conduct did not require written fee contingency fee agreements (Rule 1.5(b). Even under the new , a signed written fee , Washington s Rules of 178
July 10, 2007 Memo from the Board of Governors. The Standards, Practice, and Principles. , . " . . The Commission makes erroneous and unsupported claims that: (a) " California law, () does make fixed and flat fees refundable (see Commission s October 2009 Introduction to proposed Rule 1. , p. 69) and (b) "stating the nonrefundable flat fee in the Rule itself explicitly brings current California standards into the Rule. Id. Current California law does not prohibit nonrefundable fees. Rather than bringing current California standards into the Rule, as explained in greater detail below the Proposal creates ambiguities and uncertainties in the Rules by: (1) grossly departing from the standards, practice, and principles governing fee agreements; (2) grossly departing from and contradicting the form fee agreements (and the long-standing custom, standards, practice, and principles incorporated in those agreements) circulated by the State Bar (and which are still available on its website); (3) failing to California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice; and (4) taking a position that is inconsistent with the position of two Justices of the California Supreme Court in People v. Doolin 45 Cal. 4th 390, 460 (2009). First, the Proposal is a gross departure from "current California standards. " There are no current California standards that prevent the charging of nonrefundable retainers flat fees earned when received, and minimum fees. The Proposal contradicts the conclusion of the Board of Governors on this very issue. The endorsed by the State Bar and the , recommended minor reasonable changes to the rules permitting the continued use of " fixed fees flat fees and "nonrefundable retainers" to be earned when paid, with title immediately transferring to the attorney so long as the written fee agreement explicitly spelled out the arrangement with the inclusion of an express statement that such fees paid in advance of legal services required for the retainer or flat fee portion of the fee (and only if the lawyer and agree that the fee will be the lawyer s property on receipt). See, e. Washington Rule Comments (11) and (16). 179
Page 1 and 2:
No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
No. Commenter Position 1 10 Crimina
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 RRC - Ru
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
http://community.lawyers.com/forums
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
May 25, 2010 Martinez E-mail to Son
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53:
Rule 1.5 - Public Comment - File Li
Page 67 and 68:
101
Page 69 and 70:
103
Page 71 and 72:
105
Page 73 and 74:
107
Page 75 and 76:
109
Page 77 and 78:
111
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 and 130: the Commission s proposed paragraph
Page 131 and 132: true if the fee anything but an abs
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: Champion (May 2004); Tarlow Fee For
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
Page 181 and 182: ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees (b) Th
Page 183 and 184: ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees (e) A
Page 185 and 186: ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees Commis
Page 187 and 188: ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees Commen
Page 191 and 192: Terms of Payment ABA Model Rule Rul
Page 195 and 196:
ABA Model Rule Rule 1.5 Fees Commen
Page 197 and 198:
(a) A lawyer shall not make an agre
Page 199 and 200:
Non-refundable Fee [1B] Paragraph (
Page 201 and 202:
[9] Paragraph (e)(2) describes a fe
Page 203 and 204:
(2) a contingent fee for representi
Page 205 and 206:
[5] An agreement may not be made wh
Page 207 and 208:
(1) a lawyer may charge a true reta
Page 209 and 210:
[5] An agreement may not be made wh
Page 211 and 212:
This concept comes out of early cas
Page 213 and 214:
criminal cases but not in matrimoni
Page 215 and 216:
In civil matters, New York lawyers
Page 217 and 218:
“obtained in advance of the rende
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
No. Commenter Position 1 6 Californ
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
No. Commenter Position 1 29 Nationa
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
No. Commenter Position 1 37 Santa C
Page 247 and 248:
No. Commenter Position 1 39 State B
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 RRC - Ru
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
http://community.lawyers.com/forums
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
May 25, 2010 Martinez E-mail to Son
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293:
show all

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?