Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

No. Commenter Position 1
Comment
on Behalf
of Group?
Rule 1.5 Fees for Legal Services.
[Sorted by Commenter]
Rule
Paragraph
Comment RRC Response
sanctionable in other jurisdictions. As a
Louisville Bar Association article notes,
“[m]any jurisdictions, including Kentucky,
allow an attorney to refer to a fee as nonrefundable.”
A recent order from the Michigan
Supreme Court validated a lawyer’s nonrefundable
fee agreement in a disciplinary
case, and dismissed the charges against the
lawyer. (attached) The Court cited the
relevant rule, and stated that the “agreement
is unambiguous because it clearly states that
the $4,000 minimum fee is non-refundable.”
In addition, esteemed ethics professors
Geoffrey Hazard and William Hodes conclude
that “[s]everal situations may be imagined in
which a substantial non-refundable fee—
better understand as a minimum fee—might
be justified.”
While we do not support or endorse gratuitous
use of the term “non-refundable,” we do
oppose a rule that will discourage written fee
agreements and subject to discipline
numerous lawyers who misunderstand the
sophisticated distinctions, particularly when
this terminology is widely permitted
throughout the United States.
4 Michael F. Perlis D No 1.5(e) The Rule proposing the abolition of nonrefundable
retainers would only serve to
further deprive the people of the ability to
To address the commenter’s concerns but still
provide for enhanced client protection, the
Commission revised the approach to advance fee
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By Commenter - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 4 of 28 Printed: 5/26/2010
38