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.
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