Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
Comment RRC Response<br />
Proposed Rule that it is not a violation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
rules <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional responsibility to place the<br />
retained funds in the general account in<br />
criminal defense matters. This would alleviate<br />
concerns <strong>of</strong> the <strong>State</strong> Bar, <strong>of</strong> the chilling<br />
effects that a non-refundable retainer would<br />
have in the eyes <strong>of</strong> the client, thinking that<br />
they cannot change counsel. Yet, this<br />
amendment would allow criminal defense<br />
attorneys to continue to maintain an active<br />
law <strong>of</strong>fice. If the funds are placed in trust, it<br />
would hamper the everyday operations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
criminal law <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
7 Mark Borden D No 1.5(e) If adopted, Paragraph (e) will fundamentally<br />
alter the practice <strong>of</strong> law in <strong>California</strong>, create<br />
unnecessary complexity and confusion,<br />
seriously undermine the attorney-client<br />
relationship, and prevent many clients from<br />
obtaining representation. It is contrary to the<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> the two groups who are most<br />
affected, the lawyer and their clients.<br />
<strong>Commenter</strong>’s letter contains 14 examples <strong>of</strong><br />
potential negative impacts concerning the<br />
Proposed Rule.<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 />
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 />
RRC - 4-200 1-5 - Public Comment Chart - By <strong>Commenter</strong> - XDFT1.1 (5-26-10) doc.doc Page 7 <strong>of</strong> 28 Printed: 5/26/2010<br />
41