Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

RRC – Rule 1.5 [4-200]
E-mails, etc. – Revised (6/1/2010)
Attached:
RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.2 (05-19-10).doc
RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - Public Comment Complete - REV (05-19-10).pdf
May 19, 2010 Difuntorum E-mail to Drafters, cc RRC:
Rule 1.5 Codrafters (Vapnek, Ruvolo):
Below is some information that you might find helpful in analyzing the many comments received
that oppose adoption of Rule 1.5(e). –Randy D.
(1) Link to a Minnesota State Bar rules revision committee memorandum explaining that
committee’s proposal for regulating “flat fees.” Like the Commission’s proposed rules,
Minnesota’s proposal is based on the rationale that labeling flat fees as “nonrefundable” is
inaccurate and potentially misleading. The memorandum is a very helpful summary of the
public protection concerns at stake in the regulation of “flat fees.”
http://www.mnbar.org/committees/rules/NonrefRPCprop.pdf
(2) Link to a December 2009 D.C. Bar Counsel article describing the D.C. approach to applying
the D.C. version of ABA Model Rule 1.15 which requires advance fees to be deposited into a
client trust account and withdrawn only when they are earned. (Note that the Commission’s
proposed rules would continue to permit lawyers to use “true retainer” and “flat fee”
arrangements as fees that are earned on receipt and not required to be deposited into the client
trust account.)
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/december_200
9/barcounsel.cfm#note6
(3) Pasted below is a recent Daily Journal article entitled “The Truth About Retainers.” Also
pasted below is the State Bar Fee Arbitration Advisory mentioned in the article. The Arbitration
Advisory also is found on the Bar’s website at this link:
http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Mandatory_Fee_Arbitratio
n_Advisories.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Special%20Services/Man
datory%20Fee%20Arbitration/Arbitration%20Advisories&sHeading=01-
02&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/MFA_Advisory_01-02.html
The Truth about True Retainers
Daily Journal California Lawyer Article April 01, 2010 by Leigh Chandler and Aaron Shechet
At the outset of an attorney-client relationship, it is crucial to define the scope of the
engagement and establish payment terms. Lawyers commonly refer to a client's opening
payment as a "retainer" and often state that it is "nonrefundable." However, that can be a
big mistake. Indeed, many attorneys are confused about the proper treatment of retainers
and, specifically, whether a particular retainer payment really is nonrefundable. An
RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - E-mails, etc. - REV (06-01-10).doc -125-
Printed: June 2, 2010