Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

RRC – Rule 1.5 [4-200]
E-mails, etc. – Revised (6/1/2010)
3. Paragraph (f)(1) [Formerly (e)(1)]. I'm not sure why Randy changed proposed (e)(1). Was it
only to shorten or simplify it? I'm fine with that but I thought we had adopted the definition in
1.5(e)(1) as a more complete explanation of a true retainer than is currently found in the
California rules. Note that we removed the definitions of true retainer from Rules 1.15 and 1.16.
4. Paragraph (f)(2). I'm not sure I agree with the deletion of "if the agreed-upon legal services
have not been completed" at the end of (f)(2).
5. Comment [10]. Whether comment [10] is deleted depends upon how the Commission
resolves item #1, above.
6. Summary. As Harry and Randy have observed, this journey began with the Commission's
decision to prohibit "non-refundable" fees. As you might recall, the initial public comment
version did not have all the bells and whistles re true retainers and flat fees. That came after
public comment was received from the criminal defense bar and Raul discovered the proposed
Washington Rule 1.5(f). We incorporated those changes but have not assuaged the concerns
of the criminal defense bar. I don't agree with Mark that "our proposed rule serves a different
purpose than Washington by allowing lawyers to contract with clients to deem a flat fee paid in
advance to be the lawyer's property whether or not the lawyer actually earns the fee." I think
that what we wrote addressed the seizure issue and was not simply intended to provide criminal
defense lawyers with a way to make an advance fee their property. However, I think Randy has
made great strides in resolving the earned upon receipt vs. refund conundrum. We will have to
decide, however, whether we need to address the seizure issue.
RRC - 4-200 [1-5] - E-mails, etc. - REV (06-01-10).doc -146-
Printed: May 26, 2010
85