Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

ABA Model Rule
Rule 1.5 Fees
(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not
in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services
performed by each lawyer or each lawyer
assumes joint responsibility for the
representation;
(2) the client agrees to the arrangement,
including the share each lawyer will receive,
and the agreement is confirmed in writing;
and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
Commission’s Proposed Rule *
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services
(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not
in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services
performed by each lawyer or each lawyer
assumes joint responsibility for the
representation;
(2) the client agrees to the arrangement,
including the share each lawyer will receive,
and the agreement is confirmed in writing;
and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
Explanation of Changes to the ABA Model Rule
In the family law matters, California has a strong public policy of
promoting reconciliation and maintaining the family unit. Because
a lawyer who is being paid on a contingent basis would recover a
fee only if the marriage is dissolved and property apportioned,
permitting contingent fees in these cases would undermine the
California policy.
In criminal cases, a lawyer who is being paid on a contingent basis
would recover a fee only if the client is found not guilty. That
would create a conflict for a lawyer if the best interests of the
client, in light of the evidence, warrant the client entering a plea.
The Commission recommends deletion of Model Rule 1.5(e)
because the subject of fee divisions between lawyers is addressed
in a separate rule. See proposed Rule 1.5.1. The Commission
determined that fee divisions should be addressed in a freestanding
rule because: (i) proposed Rule 1.5.1 is a substantial
departure from the Model Rule (ii) the Commission is
recommending several revisions to current rule 2-200 to impose
more obligations on lawyers and enhance client protection, and
(iii) of the large amount of litigation this Rule has traditionally
engendered. See proposed Rule 1.5.1, Introduction, . 8.
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Compare - Rule Comment Explanation - DFT5 1 (02-08-10)KEM-ML-RD-KEM.doc {Note: Green/Italic text in the middle column indicates Model Rule text that has been moved rather than stricken.}
217