Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California 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 42 Troiano, Kenneth J. D interest as an owner in the property to defend a forfeiture, which will not be possible if funds remain the property of the client. Non-refundable fees should be judged by a set criteria, not made per se unconscionable. Many less wealthy individuals who choose sole practitioners benefit from non-refundable fees by setting an amount and avoiding higher fees associated with hourly billing. RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - DFT3.1 (10-21-09)RD-KEM-AT-RD.doc Comment RRC Response 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 payment for those services and may be paid in whole or in part in advance of the lawyer providing the services. If agreed to in advance in a writing signed by the client, a flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt. The 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. 288
RRC – Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc. – Revised (6/1/2010) October 16, 2009 Melchior E-mail to RRC:...............................................................................................100 Updated Full Dissent:........................................................................................................................100 October 16, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Yen & Lee: ..................................................102 8/29-30/08 Action Summary re Rule 1.5:..........................................................................................102 October 17, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, cc McCurdy, Yen & Lee: ..................................................103 October 17, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Blumenthal (OCTC), cc Staff: ....................................................103 October 20, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee & Yen, cc Sondheim: ................................104 October 21, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Andrew Tuft, cc McCurdy & KEM: .............................................104 October 21, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to McCurdy & KEM, cc Sondheim & Lee: ......................................104 October 21, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy & Lee, cc Sondheim:.........................................104 December 11, 2009 KEM E-mail to Lamport, cc Chair & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .........................................105 December 12, 2009 Lamport E-mail to KEM, cc Chair & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .........................................105 December 12, 2009 KEM E-mail to Lee, cc RRC & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .................................................106 December 12, 2009 Lamport E-mail to RRC re 1.5:.................................................................................106 December 14, 2009 Kehr E-mail to Difuntorum, cc Peck, Chair & Staff:..................................................106 December 14, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Kehr, cc Peck, Chair & Staff:..................................................106 December 15, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5:.......107 December 15, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5:.......108 December 15, 2009 Lee E-mail to KEM re 1.8.1 & 1.5:............................................................................108 December 15, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5: ..108 December 16, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5: ..109 December 17, 2009 McCurdy E-mail to KEM, cc Difuntorum re 1.8.1 & 1.5:...........................................109 December 17, 2009 KEM E-mail to McCurdy, cc Difuntorum re 1.8.1 & 1.5:...........................................109 February 3, 2010 Kehr E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy & KEM, cc Evan Jenness:.................................111 February 3, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Kehr, McCurdy & KEM, cc Evan Jenness:.................................111 February 4, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................111 February 8, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................111 February 8, 2010 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................112 February 8, 2010 Lee E-mail to KEM:.......................................................................................................112 February 8, 2010 KEM E-mail to Lee, cc Difuntorum: ..............................................................................112 March 24, 2010 Evan Jenness E-mail to LACBA [PREC] Listserv (forwarded to RRC by Sondheim): ...113 April 5, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Sondheim, cc KEM: ...........................................................................113 April 1, 2010 Daily Journal/ California Lawyer Article re True Retainers: .........................................114 California State Bar Arbitration Advisory 01-02 (5/16/2001):............................................................118 April 20, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Sondheim, cc KEM: .........................................................................123 May 5, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters (Vapnek & Ruvolo), cc RRC:...................................................124 May 14, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: ................................................................................124 May 19, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: ................................................................................124 May 19, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: .............................................................................125 The Truth about True Retainers........................................................................................................125 ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 ....................................................................................................130 May 19, 2010 Sondheim E-mail to RRC:..................................................................................................135 May 21, 2010 KEM E-mail to RRC: ..........................................................................................................135 May 21, 2010 Sondheim E-mail to KEM, cc RRC: ...................................................................................136 RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - E-mails, etc. - REV (06-01-10).doc -v- Printed: June 2, 2010
- Page 203 and 204: (2) a contingent fee for representi
- Page 205 and 206: [5] An agreement may not be made wh
- Page 207 and 208: (1) a lawyer may charge a true reta
- Page 209 and 210: [5] An agreement may not be made wh
- Page 211 and 212: This concept comes out of early cas
- Page 213 and 214: criminal cases but not in matrimoni
- Page 215 and 216: In civil matters, New York lawyers
- Page 217 and 218: “obtained in advance of the rende
- Page 219 and 220: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 221 and 222: No. Commenter Position 1 6 Californ
- Page 223 and 224: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 225 and 226: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 227 and 228: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 229 and 230: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 231 and 232: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 233 and 234: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 235 and 236: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 237 and 238: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 239 and 240: No. Commenter Position 1 29 Nationa
- Page 241 and 242: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 243 and 244: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 245 and 246: No. Commenter Position 1 37 Santa C
- Page 247 and 248: No. Commenter Position 1 39 State B
- Page 249 and 250: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 251 and 252: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 253: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 257 and 258: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 259 and 260: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 261 and 262: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 263 and 264: ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 RRC - Ru
- Page 265 and 266: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 267 and 268: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 269 and 270: http://community.lawyers.com/forums
- Page 271 and 272: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 273 and 274: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 275 and 276: May 25, 2010 Martinez E-mail to Son
- Page 277 and 278: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 279 and 280: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 281 and 282: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 283 and 284: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 285 and 286: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 287 and 288: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 289 and 290: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 291 and 292: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 293: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
RRC – Rule 1.5 [4-200]<br />
E-mails, etc. – Revised (6/1/2010)<br />
October 16, 2009 Melchior E-mail to RRC:...............................................................................................100<br />
Updated Full Dissent:........................................................................................................................100<br />
October 16, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Yen & Lee: ..................................................102<br />
8/29-30/08 Action Summary re Rule 1.5:..........................................................................................102<br />
October 17, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, cc McCurdy, Yen & Lee: ..................................................103<br />
October 17, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Blumenthal (OCTC), cc Staff: ....................................................103<br />
October 20, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee & Yen, cc Sondheim: ................................104<br />
October 21, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Andrew Tuft, cc McCurdy & KEM: .............................................104<br />
October 21, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to McCurdy & KEM, cc Sondheim & Lee: ......................................104<br />
October 21, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy & Lee, cc Sondheim:.........................................104<br />
December 11, 2009 KEM E-mail to Lamport, cc Chair & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .........................................105<br />
December 12, 2009 Lamport E-mail to KEM, cc Chair & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .........................................105<br />
December 12, 2009 KEM E-mail to Lee, cc RRC & Staff re 1.8.1 & 1.5: .................................................106<br />
December 12, 2009 Lamport E-mail to RRC re 1.5:.................................................................................106<br />
December 14, 2009 Kehr E-mail to Difuntorum, cc Peck, Chair & Staff:..................................................106<br />
December 14, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to Kehr, cc Peck, Chair & Staff:..................................................106<br />
December 15, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5:.......107<br />
December 15, 2009 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5:.......108<br />
December 15, 2009 Lee E-mail to KEM re 1.8.1 & 1.5:............................................................................108<br />
December 15, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5: ..108<br />
December 16, 2009 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy, Lee, Yen & Andrew Tuft re 1.8.1 & 1.5: ..109<br />
December 17, 2009 McCurdy E-mail to KEM, cc Difuntorum re 1.8.1 & 1.5:...........................................109<br />
December 17, 2009 KEM E-mail to McCurdy, cc Difuntorum re 1.8.1 & 1.5:...........................................109<br />
February 3, 2010 Kehr E-mail to Difuntorum, McCurdy & KEM, cc Evan Jenness:.................................111<br />
February 3, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Kehr, McCurdy & KEM, cc Evan Jenness:.................................111<br />
February 4, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................111<br />
February 8, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to KEM, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................111<br />
February 8, 2010 KEM E-mail to Difuntorum, cc McCurdy & Lee: ...........................................................112<br />
February 8, 2010 Lee E-mail to KEM:.......................................................................................................112<br />
February 8, 2010 KEM E-mail to Lee, cc Difuntorum: ..............................................................................112<br />
March 24, 2010 Evan Jenness E-mail to LACBA [PREC] Listserv (forwarded to RRC <strong>by</strong> Sondheim): ...113<br />
April 5, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Sondheim, cc KEM: ...........................................................................113<br />
April 1, 2010 Daily Journal/ <strong>California</strong> Lawyer Article re True Retainers: .........................................114<br />
<strong>California</strong> <strong>State</strong> Bar Arbitration Advisory 01-02 (5/16/2001):............................................................118<br />
April 20, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Sondheim, cc KEM: .........................................................................123<br />
May 5, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters (Vapnek & Ruvolo), cc RRC:...................................................124<br />
May 14, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: ................................................................................124<br />
May 19, 2010 McCurdy E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: ................................................................................124<br />
May 19, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC: .............................................................................125<br />
The Truth about True Retainers........................................................................................................125<br />
ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 ....................................................................................................130<br />
May 19, 2010 Sondheim E-mail to RRC:..................................................................................................135<br />
May 21, 2010 KEM E-mail to RRC: ..........................................................................................................135<br />
May 21, 2010 Sondheim E-mail to KEM, cc RRC: ...................................................................................136<br />
RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - E-mails, etc. - REV (06-01-10).doc -v-<br />
Printed: June 2, 2010
Change language