10.08.2013 Views

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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 />

41 Tarlow, Barry D Subparagraph (f) is not in the ABA Model<br />

Rules and has not been sufficiently<br />

publicized, disseminated or explained in a<br />

manner that informs members <strong>of</strong> the bar <strong>of</strong> its<br />

existence and permits them to respond or<br />

object.<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 />

Proposed rule would prevent fully informed<br />

client and attorney from entering into a nonrefundable<br />

retainer agreement where this fee<br />

arrangement is in the client’s best interest.<br />

Threatens economic viability <strong>of</strong> high volume,<br />

low fee practices.<br />

Under the proposal, any portion <strong>of</strong> fees for<br />

future legal services would be the property <strong>of</strong><br />

the client and may be subject to restraint or<br />

forfeiture. This exposes attorneys to financial<br />

peril <strong>by</strong> facilitating restraint/seizure <strong>of</strong> fees if<br />

any client has potential criminal or bankruptcy<br />

problem or has a dispute with the IRS, SEC or<br />

even a vulnerability to creditor’s claims.<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 />

The proposal was issued for a 90-day public<br />

comment period posted on the <strong>State</strong> Bar website<br />

and was also the subject <strong>of</strong> a public hearing in<br />

Sacramento that was noticed <strong>by</strong> several methods,<br />

including: a posting at the <strong>State</strong> Bar website;<br />

public notices in the Daily Journal, the Daily<br />

Recorder, and the Sacramento Bee; e-mail<br />

notifications to approximately 14,000 interested<br />

persons; and a press release to the media.<br />

To address the commenter’s concerns but still<br />

provide for enhanced client protection, the<br />

Commission revised the approach to advance fee<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 />

285

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!