10.08.2013 Views

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!