Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Rule Revision Commission Action/Vote to Recommend Rule Adoption*
(14 Members Total – votes recorded may be less than 14 due to member absences)
Approved on 10-day Ballot, Less than Six Members Opposing Adoption □
Vote (see tally below)
Favor Rule as Recommended for Adoption __9___
Opposed Rule as Recommended for Adoption __3___
Abstain __0___
Minority/Position Included on Model Rule Comparison Chart Yes □ No
[*NOTE: The above vote records the position of the Commission on the version of Rule 1.5 submitted to the Board of
Governors for consideration at its January 7–9, 2010 meeting. The version of Rule 1.5 submitted by the Commission
was modified by the Board at that meeting to include paragraph (f) and related comments. Although paragraph (f) and
the related comments were not a part of the Commission’s recommended rule reflected in the above vote, they were
adopted by the Board of Governors based upon a recommendation of a minority of the Commission. Paragraph (f)
and the related comments were drafted by a minority of the Commission to enhance protection for clients who might
encounter proposed fee agreement modifications that are adverse to their interests.]
Stakeholders and Level of Controversy
□ No Known Stakeholders
The Following Stakeholders Are Known:
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (Rickard Santwier); San Diego Criminal Defense
Bar Association (Michael L. Crowley); National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
(John Wesley Hall); and members of the California criminal defense bar. See Public
Comment Chart for a complete list of those who commented on proposed Rule 1.5.
Very Controversial – Explanation:
During the public comment period, members of the California criminal defense bar and
some of their representative organizations disagreed with the Commission’s proposed
paragraph (f), which provided that a lawyer shall not charge, contract for or collect a nonrefundable
fee, except for a true retainer. After public comment, the Commission revised
the Rule to also permit non-refundable flat fees, so long as certain requirements are met.
See Introduction & Explanation for paragraph (e)(2). The Commission believes the changes
made may assuage the concerns raised by the criminal defense bar.
□ Moderately Controversial – Explanation:
□ Not Controversial
RRC_-_4-200_[1-5]_-_Dashboard_-_ADOPT_-_DFT3_(2-5-10)KEM-PV-LM-RD.doc
2
206