Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

ABA Model Rule
Rule 1.5 Fees
Comment
a proceeding or transaction. However, it is proper to
define the extent of services in light of the client's
ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee
arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by
using wasteful procedures.
Prohibited Contingent Fees
[6] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from charging a
contingent fee in a domestic relations matter when
payment is contingent upon the securing of a divorce
or upon the amount of alimony or support or property
settlement to be obtained. This provision does not
preclude a contract for a contingent fee for legal
representation in connection with the recovery of
post-judgment balances due under support, alimony
or other financial orders because such contracts do
not implicate the same policy concerns.
Commission’s Proposed Rule
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services
Comment
a proceeding or transaction. However, it is proper to
define the extent of services in light of the client's
ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee
arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by
using wasteful procedures.
Prohibited Contingent Fees
[6] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from charging a
contingent fee in a domestic relations matter when
payment is contingent upon the securing of a divorce
or upon the amount of alimony or support or property
settlement to be obtained. This provision(1) does not
preclude a contract for a contingent fee for legal
representation in connection with the recovery of
post-judgment balances past due under child or
spousal support, alimony or other financial orders
because such contracts do not implicate the same
policy concerns.
Payment of Fees in Advance of Services
[7] Every fee agreed to, charged, or collected,
including a fee that is a lawyer's property on receipt
under paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2), is subject to Rule
1.5(a) and may not be unconscionable.
Explanation of Changes to the ABA Model Rule
Comment [6] is based on Model Rule 1.5, cmt. [6]. The first
sentence has been deleted because it simply restates the
prohibition in paragraph (d)(1) and uses terminology different
from that used in California. See Explanation of Changes for
paragraph (d). The second sentence has been revised to
substitute terminology used in California for the Model Rule
terminology.
Comment [7] has no counterpart in the Model Rule. It is based in
part on Washington Rule 1.5, cmt. [10].
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.}
226