Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
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