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 />
16 Charles Sevilla D No 1.5(e)(2) Subpart (2) adds uncertainty to the Rules.<br />
While the Rule states that the fee is the<br />
property <strong>of</strong> the attorney on receipt, this is<br />
contradicted <strong>by</strong> the addition <strong>of</strong> the clause<br />
stating the client, upon termination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
relationship, can demand a refund. A fee<br />
cannot be both an attorney’s property if it is<br />
also subject to a client right <strong>of</strong> refund. This<br />
makes the fee status uncertain and has direct<br />
implications in matters <strong>of</strong> creditor rights and<br />
government forfeiture claims.<br />
Comment RRC Response<br />
The client’s interest in fee contracts are<br />
already protected in a number <strong>of</strong> areas: (1)<br />
B&P Code section 6148; (2) CRPC Rule 3-<br />
300; Hawk v. <strong>State</strong> Bar, In re Corona; (3)<br />
CRPC Rule 3-700(D)(2); and (4) CRPC 4-<br />
200, Bushman v. <strong>State</strong> Bar.<br />
Many criminal defense lawyers are sole<br />
practitioners who regularly charge flat fees for<br />
routine criminal matters. This Rule<br />
unnecessarily puts in place a condition that<br />
essentially makes the fee fixed (or “flat”) only<br />
at client sufferance. If the work for the<br />
attorney is substantial, the client will be<br />
content with a fixed fee. But if the attorney<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 />
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 />
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 />
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 27 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />
61