Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

ethics.calbar.ca.gov
from ethics.calbar.ca.gov More from this publisher
10.08.2013 Views

No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on Behalf of Group? Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services. [Sorted by Commenter] Rule Paragraph RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc Comment RRC Response availability of low, fixed fee services. 1.5(f) will adversely affect attorney-client relationships. 9 COPRAC A Some practitioners may not be familiar with the distinction between a “non-refundable fee” and a “true retainer”. Commission should include reference to case law to provide additional guidance in Comment [2], including possible citation to: payments in paragraph (e) of the Rule to provide as follows: (2) a lawyer may charge a flat fee for specified legal services, which constitutes complete payment for those services and may be paid in whole or in part in advance of the lawyer providing the services. If agreed to in advance in a writing signed by the client, a flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt. The written fee agreement shall, in a manner that can easily be understood by the client, include the following: (i) the scope of the services to be provided; (ii) the total amount of the fee and the terms of payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the fee agreement does not alter the client’s right to terminate the client-lawyer relationship; and (v) that the client may be entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if the agreed-upon legal services have not been completed. Commission revised the rule comments to include a discussion of advance fee payments and “true retainer” fees (see Comments [7] – [11]. 258

No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on Behalf of Group? Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services. [Sorted by Commenter] Rule Paragraph 10 Cron, Steve D Baranowski v. State Bar, 24 Cal.3d 153; In the Matter of Fonte, 2 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr. 752, 757; S.E.C. v. Interlink Data Network of Los Angeles, Inc, 77 F.3d 1201; Matter of Lais, 3 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr. 907, 923; Matter of Brockway, 4 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr 944, 950- 51. Bar should not eliminate fixed fee agreements completely, but instead focus on fixed fee agreements calling for unconscionable fees or cases where lawyer clearly does not deserve the fees charged based on the services rendered. RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc Comment RRC Response To address the commenter’s concerns but still provide for enhanced client protection, the Commission revised the approach to advance fee payments in paragraph (e) of the Rule to provide as follows: (2) a lawyer may charge a flat fee for specified legal services, which constitutes complete payment for those services and may be paid in whole or in part in advance of the lawyer providing the services. If agreed to in advance in a writing signed by the client, a flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt. The written fee agreement shall, in a manner that can easily be understood by the client, include the following: (i) the scope of the services to be provided; (ii) the total amount of the fee and the terms of payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the fee agreement does not alter the client’s right to terminate the client-lawyer relationship; and (v) that the client may be entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if 259

No. <strong>Commenter</strong> Position 1<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 />

RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc<br />

Comment RRC Response<br />

availability <strong>of</strong> low, fixed fee services.<br />

1.5(f) will adversely affect attorney-client<br />

relationships.<br />

9 COPRAC A Some practitioners may not be familiar with<br />

the distinction between a “non-refundable fee”<br />

and a “true retainer”.<br />

Commission should include reference to case<br />

law to provide additional guidance in<br />

Comment [2], including possible citation to:<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 />

Commission revised the rule comments to include a<br />

discussion <strong>of</strong> advance fee payments and “true<br />

retainer” fees (see Comments [7] – [11].<br />

258

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!