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
34 Sall, Robert K. D CA should adopt the “unreasonable” fee
standard.
With respect to the definition of
“unconscionability” in paragraph (b), the
reference to determining unconscionability “at
the time the agreement is entered into” is
problematic because many of the key
elements in paragraph (c) (i.e. time spent,
results obtained, nature of litigation and effort
involved) are determined at the end of
representation, not at the beginning.
Supports paragraph (f) but better guidance is
needed as to the definition of a “true retainer.”
35 San Diego County Bar
Association (Heather L.
Rosing)
36 San Diego Criminal Defense
Bar Association (Michael L.
Crowley)
D CA should adopt ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) with
the addition of the factors in rule 4-200 to
determine reasonableness.
D Non-refundable retainers prevent “check-book
defenses” in which the decision as to whether
a meritorious motion or legal task should be
undertaken is made based on funding.
Criminal defense requires that every
meritorious action be taken to provide zealous
advocacy even when chances of success are
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc
Comment RRC Response
Commission’s recommendation for paragraph (a) of
the Rule is to retain the prohibition on an
“unconscionable or illegal” fee, in part, because the
Commission has considered existing California case
law and supports the policy reflected in that case
law.
In addition to modifying the approach to advance fee
payments fees in paragraph (e) of the Rule,
Comment [13] was added to discuss what
constitutes a “true” retainer
Commission’s recommendation for paragraph (a) of
the Rule is to retain the prohibition on an
“unconscionable or illegal” fee, in part, because the
Commission has considered existing California case
law and supports the policy reflected in that case
law.
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
278