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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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

“completion” <strong>of</strong> services. This paragraph<br />

adds uncertainty (which will certainly promote<br />

fee disputes) and promotes the problem<br />

identified in the preceding paragraph.<br />

11 Barry Tarlow D No 1.5(e) Rule 1.5(e), essentially prohibiting nonrefundable<br />

retainers for almost all legal<br />

services, will drastically impact the economics<br />

<strong>of</strong> practicing law in <strong>California</strong> as well as the<br />

ability <strong>of</strong> people in need <strong>of</strong> representation to<br />

obtain legal services.<br />

Considering the significance <strong>of</strong> the 2009<br />

revisions to Rule 1.5(e)(1)-(2) I am especially<br />

concerned that in apparent violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>State</strong><br />

Bar Rule 1.10(A) this novel version <strong>of</strong> Rule<br />

1.5(e)(1)-(2) prepared <strong>by</strong> the Commission for<br />

the Revision <strong>of</strong> the Rules <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />

Conduct was neither publicized nor<br />

disseminated, in any manner prior to its<br />

property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the<br />

fee agreement does not alter the client’s<br />

right to terminate the client-lawyer<br />

relationship; and (v) that the client may be<br />

entitled to a refund <strong>of</strong> a portion <strong>of</strong> the fee if<br />

the agreed-upon legal services have not<br />

been completed.<br />

The Commission did not make the requested<br />

revision, in part, because the Commission believes<br />

that charging a non-refundable fee is inimical to<br />

<strong>California</strong>’s strong policy <strong>of</strong> client protection. (See<br />

also proposed Rule 1.5 Model Rule Comparison<br />

Chart explanation <strong>of</strong> paragraph (e) <strong>of</strong> the rule.)<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 />

RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 16 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />

50

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!