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
Sub-parts (e)(2)(i), (ii) and (iv) are equally
applicable to all types of retainer agreements.
Including them in a sub-part that pertains only
to flat fee agreements creates the misleading
negative inference that these requirements
may not apply to hourly or contingency fee
agreements. If it is desirable to mandate that
fee agreements contain additional provisions,
this should be accomplished through the
existing statutory framework in the B&P Code.
The Legislature could choose to amend
sections 6147 and 6148 to specifically
address flat fees, but attorneys who use flat
fee arrangements should not be singled out
for discipline for failing to have details in a fee
agreement that are not required for other type
of fee arrangements.
Sup-part (e)(2) provides that the fee is the
“lawyer’s property on receipt,” but also
requires the attorney to state that the client
“may be entitled to a refund” under certain
circumstances. This is confusing. Also,
stating that a fee is the lawyer’s property on
receipt suggests the creation of substantive
law. Isn’t the intent simply to clarify that a flat
fee need not be placed in the client trust
account? To describe the fee as the “lawyer’s
property” increases the likelihood of future
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.
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 23 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010
57