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
litigation over who owns the fee, especially
when combined with the mandate that
counsel state that the client may be entitled to
a refund. Ambiguities in fee agreements are
construed against the lawyer, and this draft
rule mandates an ambiguity.
The proposed language in sub-part (e)(2) is
unnecessary in light of the prohibition on
charging unconscionable fees, a traditional
and well established standard which
sufficiently safeguards clients from
unscrupulous lawyers who overcharge clients,
and which provides a uniform standard
regardless of the type of retainer agreement
involved.
The language of (e)(2) may discourage the
attorney from providing details in the fee
agreement regarding the extent of the work
for which a flat fee is being paid because of
the potential it creates for a client to request a
refund because “the agreed-upon legal
services have not been completed.” The
proposed language will foment greater
discord over fee agreements, which is not in
the interests of either clients or the legal
profession.
This proposal likely will lead to litigation in the
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 24 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010
58