Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

No. Commenter Position 1
39 State Bar Office of the Chief
Trial Counsel (OCTC)
Comment
on Behalf
of Group?
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services.
[Sorted by Commenter]
Rule
Paragraph
D The OCTC is opposed to any attempt to
specifically define the term “unconscionable”
in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 1.5. The
phrase “unconscionable fee” is sufficiently
defined by case law and has been found not
to be unconstitutionally vague.
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc
Comment RRC Response
We urge the Commission to consider adding
two additional factors to the list set forth in
paragraph (c). Those additional factors are:
(1) whether the fee involves an element of
fraud or overreaching on the attorney’s part;
and (2) whether there was any failure on the
attorney’s part to disclose the true facts to the
client.
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 did not delete the definition, in part,
because the Commission believes the definition
gives helpful guidance and is neither overbroad nor
underinclusive.
With regard to OCTC’s first suggestion, the
Commission believes that because paragraph (b)
already identifies “fraudulent conduct or
overreaching,” there is no need to include the
suggested factor.
With regard to OCTC’s second suggestion, the
Commission believes the language “any failure . . .
to disclose the true facts” is overbroad.
281