Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
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