10.08.2013 Views

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!