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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

NOTE: The following e‐mail message precedes Kevin’s last message in the string<br />

from May 26, 2010 at 1:18 pm<br />

From: Difuntorum, Randall<br />

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:35 AM<br />

Subject: Rule 1.5<br />

I have revised my suggested redraft to clarify that true retainers and flat fees are not "exceptions" to the<br />

prohibition against nonrefundable fees. I also fixed some nits and added a new comment which explains<br />

the prohibition against a "nonrefundable" fee <strong>by</strong> citing Matthew v. <strong>State</strong> Bar. Changes are highlighted. ‐<br />

Randy D.<br />

Attached:<br />

Rule 1 5 ‐ Dft12 1 (05‐26‐10) RD cf Dft11 (12‐14‐09).doc<br />

86

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!