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 14 San Diego County Bar Association Comment on Behalf of Group? Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services. [Sorted by Commenter] Rule Paragraph Comment RRC Response action in order to ensure that all of California’s new Rules of Professional Conduct are lawfully adopted. D Yes CA should adopt ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) with the addition of the factors in rule 4-200 to determine reasonableness. 15 Michael Pancer D No I believe that the “flat fee” can play an important role in maximizing the availability of legal services, especially to those who can least afford it. Many clients prefer to have a “flat fee” arrangement. Unless a client is extremely wealthy, a client is concerned about the cost of legal services and often does not want to enter into an agreement where the amount is indefinite. And while there may be attorneys who would take advantage of the “flat fee” opportunity, certainly there now exists sufficient safeguards to prevent “unconscionable” fees. But if “flat fee” contracts are not going to be enforced and therefore not entered, many potential clients will find themselves unable to avail themselves of legal services that they request and require. Commission’s recommendation for paragraph (a) of the Rule is to retain the prohibition on an “unconscionable or illegal” fee, in part, because the Commission has considered existing California case law and supports the policy reflected in that case law. 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 RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 26 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010 60
No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on Behalf of Group? Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services. [Sorted by Commenter] Rule Paragraph 16 Charles Sevilla D No 1.5(e)(2) Subpart (2) adds uncertainty to the Rules. While the Rule states that the fee is the property of the attorney on receipt, this is contradicted by the addition of the clause stating the client, upon termination of the relationship, can demand a refund. A fee cannot be both an attorney’s property if it is also subject to a client right of refund. This makes the fee status uncertain and has direct implications in matters of creditor rights and government forfeiture claims. Comment RRC Response The client’s interest in fee contracts are already protected in a number of areas: (1) B&P Code section 6148; (2) CRPC Rule 3- 300; Hawk v. State Bar, In re Corona; (3) CRPC Rule 3-700(D)(2); and (4) CRPC 4- 200, Bushman v. State Bar. Many criminal defense lawyers are sole practitioners who regularly charge flat fees for routine criminal matters. This Rule unnecessarily puts in place a condition that essentially makes the fee fixed (or “flat”) only at client sufferance. If the work for the attorney is substantial, the client will be content with a fixed fee. But if the attorney entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if the agreed-upon legal services have not been completed. 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. RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 27 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010 61
- Page 1 and 2: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 3 and 4: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 5 and 6: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 7 and 8: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 9 and 10: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 11 and 12: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 13 and 14: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 15 and 16: No. Commenter Position 1 10 Crimina
- Page 17 and 18: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 19 and 20: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 21 and 22: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 23 and 24: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 25: No. Commenter Position 1 Comment on
- Page 29 and 30: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 31 and 32: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 33 and 34: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 35 and 36: ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 RRC - Ru
- Page 37 and 38: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 39 and 40: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 41 and 42: http://community.lawyers.com/forums
- Page 43 and 44: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 45 and 46: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 47 and 48: May 25, 2010 Martinez E-mail to Son
- Page 49 and 50: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 51 and 52: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 53: Rule 1.5 - Public Comment - File Li
- Page 67 and 68: 101
- Page 69 and 70: 103
- Page 71 and 72: 105
- Page 73 and 74: 107
- Page 75 and 76: 109
No. <strong>Commenter</strong> Position 1<br />
14 San Diego County Bar<br />
Association<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 />
Comment RRC Response<br />
action in order to ensure that all <strong>of</strong> <strong>California</strong>’s<br />
new Rules <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Conduct are<br />
lawfully adopted.<br />
D Yes CA should adopt ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) with<br />
the addition <strong>of</strong> the factors in rule 4-200 to<br />
determine reasonableness.<br />
15 Michael Pancer D No I believe that the “flat fee” can play an<br />
important role in maximizing the availability <strong>of</strong><br />
legal services, especially to those who can<br />
least afford it.<br />
Many clients prefer to have a “flat fee”<br />
arrangement. Unless a client is extremely<br />
wealthy, a client is concerned about the cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> legal services and <strong>of</strong>ten does not want to<br />
enter into an agreement where the amount is<br />
indefinite. And while there may be attorneys<br />
who would take advantage <strong>of</strong> the “flat fee”<br />
opportunity, certainly there now exists<br />
sufficient safeguards to prevent<br />
“unconscionable” fees. But if “flat fee”<br />
contracts are not going to be enforced and<br />
therefore not entered, many potential clients<br />
will find themselves unable to avail<br />
themselves <strong>of</strong> legal services that they request<br />
and require.<br />
Commission’s recommendation for paragraph (a) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rule is to retain the prohibition on an “unconscionable<br />
or illegal” fee, in part, because the Commission has<br />
considered existing <strong>California</strong> case law and supports<br />
the policy reflected in that case law.<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 />
<strong>of</strong> the services to be provided; (ii) the total<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> the fee and the terms <strong>of</strong><br />
payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s<br />
property immediately on receipt; (iv) that the<br />
fee agreement does not alter the client’s<br />
right to terminate the client-lawyer<br />
relationship; and (v) that the client may be<br />
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 26 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />
60