Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

No. Commenter Position 1
Comment
on Behalf
of Group?
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services.
[Sorted by Commenter]
Rule
Paragraph
Comment RRC Response
November 2009 approval by the Board of
Governors. Therefore, the membership of the
Bar was unaware of this new Rule or that it
would be considered at the November 14,
2009 Board of Governors meeting and were
unable to meaningfully respond or object and
be heard at the RAC and Board of Governors’
November meetings.
The Commission has not published any
comprehensive or detailed factual and legal
analysis for enacting these extensive changes
or demonstrated that a need exists to do so.
Rule 1.5(e)(1)-(2) also clearly violates the
“Commission Charter.” The Commission has
asserted that a principle reason for this Rule
“is client protection.” However, since 1991, I
have asked the proponents of attempts to
abolish non-refundable retainers for evidence
supporting the claim that in California there is
a pattern of unethical lawyers cheating clients
by using non-refundable retainers. None has
been forthcoming.
It is also significant that this prohibition
appears nowhere in the ABA Model Rules.
Since the 19 th Century non-refundable
retainers have been used in California and
are currently permitted in many states. In
fact, in 1992 the Board of Governors of the
of the services to be provided; (ii) the total
amount of the fee and the terms of
payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s
property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the
fee agreement does not alter the client’s
right to terminate the client-lawyer
relationship; and (v) that the client may be
entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if
the agreed-upon legal services have not
been completed.
The Commission did not make the requested
revision, in part, because the Commission believes
that charging a non-refundable fee is inimical to
California’s strong policy of client protection. (See
also proposed Rule 1.5 Model Rule Comparison
Chart explanation of paragraph (e) of the rule.)
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 17 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010
51