Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Should it be Deposited?, 1 Fla. Coastal L. J. 293 (1999), ABA Manual on Professional Responsibility 45:109 (1993), In re Mance,
D.C. Ct. of Appeals, 06-BGT-890 (09-24-2009). Many criminal defense lawyers, including some who submitted comments to the
earlier version of proposed Rule 1.5, said they would agree to refund a portion of a flat or fixed fee to a client who changed counsel
shortly after paying the fixed fee or if charges were dismissed soon after the lawyer was retained.
A separate minority of the Commission takes the position that by limiting an availability fee only to circumstances where the lawyer
will additionally bill fully for his or her services when working on the engagement without giving any credit to the client for the
“availability fee” payment, the proposed Rule changes existing law, limits the availability fee to situations which rarely if ever occur in
real life, makes other “advance fees” subject to third party sequestration, and serves neither client nor lawyer well. The minority
concludes that there are alternative means of protecting a client who becomes entitled to return of all or part of an advance fee, as
explained in the attached dissent, below.
Variations in Other Jurisdictions. Forty-one jurisdictions have adopted a reasonable fee standard. Eight jurisdictions have retained
the “clearly excessive or illegal” standard from the 1969 ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Two jurisdictions have the
“illegal or unconscionable” standard. See also State Variations, below.
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Compare - Introduction - DFT4 (2-5-10)KEM-RD-RD.doc
211