10.08.2013 Views

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

No. <strong>Commenter</strong> Position 1<br />

10 Criminal Defense Lawyers<br />

Club <strong>of</strong> San Diego<br />

Comment<br />

on Behalf<br />

<strong>of</strong> Group?<br />

Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services.<br />

[<strong>Sorted</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>Commenter</strong>]<br />

Rule<br />

Paragraph<br />

Comment RRC Response<br />

received and substantially underestimates the<br />

legal work, he will certainly not be terminated<br />

<strong>by</strong> the client. However, when the lawyer<br />

through skill and ability has, in a short time<br />

obtained a significant result that is not<br />

outcome-determinative in an ongoing case,<br />

the Rule encourages clients to terminate the<br />

representation without cause and obtain a<br />

refund <strong>of</strong> a substantial portion <strong>of</strong> the “flat fee”<br />

that under this Proposal would no longer be<br />

“the lawyer’s property” or property to which<br />

the lawyer is entitled.<br />

D Yes 1.5(e) This Proposed Rule puts in place a condition<br />

that essentially makes the fee “flat” only upon<br />

the client’s wish as the case proceeds. If the<br />

work for the attorney is substantial, the client<br />

will be content with the flat fee arrangement.<br />

But if the attorney seems to be on the way to<br />

a result that will end the case on a favorable<br />

note for the client can pull out <strong>of</strong> the “flat fee”<br />

contract, fire the attorney, and demand a<br />

substantial refund.<br />

Specifically, paragraph (e) <strong>of</strong> Rule 1.5<br />

prohibits non-refundable retainers for legal<br />

services except under the circumstances<br />

outlined in subpart (1) and (2). Yet, the latter<br />

Rule, while first stating the fee is the<br />

attorney’s on delivery, then says the client<br />

may be entitled to a refund prior to the<br />

To address the commenter’s concerns but still<br />

provide for enhanced client protection, the<br />

Commission revised the approach to advance fee<br />

payments in paragraph (e) <strong>of</strong> the Rule to provide as<br />

follows:<br />

(2) a lawyer may charge a flat fee for specified<br />

legal services, which constitutes complete<br />

payment for those services and may be paid<br />

in whole or in part in advance <strong>of</strong> the lawyer<br />

providing the services. If agreed to in<br />

advance in a writing signed <strong>by</strong> the client, a<br />

flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt.<br />

The written fee agreement shall, in a<br />

manner that can easily be understood <strong>by</strong><br />

the client, include the following: (i) the scope<br />

<strong>of</strong> the services to be provided; (ii) the total<br />

amount <strong>of</strong> the fee and the terms <strong>of</strong><br />

payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s<br />

RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 15 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />

49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!