Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
No. <strong>Commenter</strong> Position 1<br />
12 Arguedas, Cassman &<br />
Headley, LLP<br />
Comment<br />
on Behalf<br />
<strong>of</strong> Group?<br />
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services.<br />
[<strong>Sorted</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>Commenter</strong>]<br />
Rule<br />
Paragraph<br />
without cause.<br />
D We are unaware <strong>of</strong> any pattern <strong>of</strong> attorneys<br />
abusing non-refundable fees to bilk their<br />
clients. Such misconduct is barred <strong>by</strong><br />
already-existing rules, such as current Rule 4-<br />
200, which prohibits attorneys from charging<br />
or collecting unconscionable fees.<br />
Comment RRC Response<br />
Exception (e)(1) to the Proposed Rule<br />
purports to permit a “true retainer” fee to<br />
“ensure the lawyer’s availability to the client.”<br />
But the Proposed Rule would prohibit an<br />
agreement under which the retainer would<br />
constitute a minimum fee that ensures the<br />
attorney’s availability yet also serves as a<br />
credit against which the attorney charges her<br />
time until the fee is exhausted. Such<br />
arrangements are common and benefit both<br />
the client and the attorney.<br />
Proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2) purports to permit<br />
“flat fee” agreements under which the fee<br />
becomes the property <strong>of</strong> the attorney upon<br />
receipt, but the Rule will in fact make such<br />
arrangements impossible. Subsection (e)(2)<br />
requires a written agreement that states,<br />
among other things, “that the client may be<br />
entitled to a refund <strong>of</strong> a portion <strong>of</strong> the fee if<br />
the agreed-upon legal services have not been<br />
To address the commenter’s concerns but still<br />
provide for enhanced client protection, the<br />
Commission revised the approach to advance fee<br />
payments in paragraph (e) <strong>of</strong> the Rule to provide as<br />
follows:<br />
(2) a lawyer may charge a flat fee for specified<br />
legal services, which constitutes complete<br />
payment for those services and may be paid<br />
in whole or in part in advance <strong>of</strong> the lawyer<br />
providing the services. If agreed to in<br />
advance in a writing signed <strong>by</strong> the client, a<br />
flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt.<br />
The written fee agreement shall, in a<br />
manner that can easily be understood <strong>by</strong><br />
the client, include the following: (i) the scope<br />
<strong>of</strong> the services to be provided; (ii) the total<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> the fee and the terms <strong>of</strong><br />
payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s<br />
property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the<br />
fee agreement does not alter the client’s<br />
right to terminate the client-lawyer<br />
relationship; and (v) that the client may be<br />
entitled to a refund <strong>of</strong> a portion <strong>of</strong> the fee if<br />
the agreed-upon legal services have not<br />
been completed.<br />
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 20 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />
54