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
many types of legal work to great financial
risk. It will facilitate the restraint or seizure of
fees if the client has a potential problem
involving, for example, securities law,
bankruptcy, criminal law, tax law and even
some creditors’ claims. Why enact this novel
and untested fee arrangement that will result
in years of collateral litigation, when for more
than 40 years the nonrefundable retainer has
proved to be the best available fee agreement
to protect the client and lawyer from fee
restraint and/or fee forfeiture?
The proposed Rule changes and Comments
are also confusing and internally inconsistent.
Rule 1.5(e)(2)’s novel requirement that
specific, detailed wording be included in flat
fee agreements presents a trap for the honest
lawyer who is unfamiliar with these new Rules
and the complex fact patterns that will
develop. It will also certainly cause clients to
fire their lawyers without cause and demand a
refund of fees that until now have been
considered and were in fact earned when
received. The result will be the filing of
arbitration demands, State Bar complaints,
and civil suits. Of course, if a lawyer has
seriously underestimated the work involved in
a complicated “flat fee” case, which often
occurs, ordinarily he will never be discharged
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 19 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010
53