Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

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

ethics.calbar.ca.gov
from ethics.calbar.ca.gov More from this publisher
10.08.2013 Views

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

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!