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.

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!