Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

ABA Model Rule
Rule 1.5 Fees
Comment
Reasonableness of Fee and Expenses
[1] Paragraph (a) requires that lawyers charge fees
that are reasonable under the circumstances. . . .
[COMMENT [1] is continued in the next row]
[COMMENT [1] continued]
. . . . The factors specified in (1) through (8) are not
exclusive. Nor will each factor be relevant in each
instance. Paragraph (a) also requires that expenses
Commission’s Proposed Rule
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services
Comment
ReasonablenessUnconscionability of Fee and
Expenses
[1] Paragraph (a) requires that lawyers charge fees
that are not unconscionable or illegal under the
circumstances. An illegal fee can result from a
variety of circumstances, including when a lawyer
renders services under a fee agreement that is
unenforceable as illegal or against public policy,
(e.g., Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940,
950-951 [203 Cal.Rptr. 879] [fee agreement with
other lawyer entered under threat of withholding
client file]), when a lawyer contracts for or collects a
fee that exceeds statutory limits (e.g., In re Shalant
(Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 829;
In re Harney (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar
Ct. Rptr. 266 [fees exceeding limits under Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 6146]), or when an unlicensed lawyer
provides legal services. (e.g., Birbrower,
Montalbano, Condon and Frank v. Superior Court
(1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 136 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ]; In
re Wells (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 896.)
[1B] Paragraph (ab) requires that lawyers charge
fees that are reasonable under the
circumstancesdefines an unconscionable fee. (See
Herrscher v. State Bar (1934) 4 Cal.2d 399, 402 [49
P.2d 832]; Goldstone v. State Bar (1931) 214 Cal.
Explanation of Changes to the ABA Model Rule
The title for this section of the Rule has been revised to reflect the
standard being recommended.
The Commission recommends that Model Rule 1.5, cmt. [1] be
rejected because it addresses the reasonable fee standard, which
the Commission has recommended be rejected. See Introduction.
In its place, the Commission has proposed Comment [1] and [1B],
which clarifies paragraphs (a) and (b) and provides additional
guidance for their application by citing to California decisional law
concerning illegal or unconscionable fees.
Comment [1B] emphasizes that the eleven factors in paragraph
(c) are not exclusive, and that not all of them will necessarily be
relevant in every instance. The next-to-last sentence observes
that contingent fees are subject to the same unconscionability
standard as other fee arrangements. Finally, the last sentence
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.}
220