Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California
Rex Heinke April 2 , 2010 Page 2 Proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2) make binding , leaves open the possibility that government agencies could require termination of counsel and return unused retainers, and could evaluation of what portion of a retainer need be returned relative to non-completed legal servICes. In sum, I would urge that we follow the old maxim if it isn t broken, don t fix it. Michael F. Perlis LA 51253795vl STROOCK 202'1 CENTlIHY PARK EAST . LOS AN(;U. , CA 900()7- 30X(, TEL 3J(). 55(,. 5XOO EAX 310. 5)(,. 5'15\) WWW. STROOCK. COM 120
MORTIMER L. LASKI' KENNETH G. GORDON' . A Mr. Howard B. Miller Girardi & Keese 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Dear Mr. Miller: LAS K ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16633 VENTURA BOULEVARD SUITE 805 ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 TELEPHONE (818) 788-5492 FAX (818) 788-5499 April 8 , 2010 This letter is written to you in your capacity as President change to Rule 1.5(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. LLP Re: Proposed Rule 1.5(e) ANTHONY E. GLASS My firm specializes in tax planning and tax controversy matters , both civil and criminal. The major part of our work pertains to the tax controversy area. The firm was started in 1983 and I have been admitted , 1972 through 1979 I was a senior trial attorney with York Br in 1971 and the California Bar in the Internal Revenue Service. Since January, 1980 I have been in private practice and have extensive in dealing with various government taxing agencies. My principal concern with the proposed pertaining to flat fees. Assuming the attorney and client agree in writing, a flat fee is the lawyer s property on receipt. As such, the attorney should properly deposit this fee into his operating account and take it into income. In a tax sense, the attorney has dominion and control over the fee and should treat it as income. In the event that not the lawyer s property or is subj ect to a substantial risk , then the tax treatment would be otherwise. The language of proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2)(v) provides that the written fee agreement shall include a provision that the client may be entitled to a refund performed. This language appears to introduce a substantial condition into the equation of the lawyer s dominion and control of the fee. I believe that there are sufficient remedies against abuses , such as the non-performance or incompetent performance oflegal services, without the broad brush approach embodied in the proposed Rule that not only property rights, but puts the interests of both the lawyer and client at risk in certain fact situations. The factual example will suffice: Client was a substantial Schedule business, the receipts of which were mostly in cash. The business is completely legal. Client and representation before the Internal Revenue Service during the course of a civil tax examination. the event that the client and the IRS could not come to an agreement as to civil tax liability, understood that a trial would be necessary in the U. S. Tax Court. Fees arrangements for such a trial were left open, inasmuch as the dimensions of the case could not be fully completion of the tax examination. 121
- Page 35 and 36: ARBITRATION ADVISORY 01-02 RRC - Ru
- Page 37 and 38: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 39 and 40: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 41 and 42: http://community.lawyers.com/forums
- Page 43 and 44: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 45 and 46: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 47 and 48: May 25, 2010 Martinez E-mail to Son
- Page 49 and 50: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 51 and 52: RRC - Rule 1.5 [4-200] E-mails, etc
- Page 53: Rule 1.5 - Public Comment - File Li
- Page 67 and 68: 101
- Page 69 and 70: 103
- Page 71 and 72: 105
- Page 73 and 74: 107
- Page 75 and 76: 109
- Page 77 and 78: 111
- Page 79 and 80: 113
- Page 81 and 82: 115
- Page 83 and 84: 117
- Page 85: STROOCK April 2, 2010 Michael F. Pe
- Page 89 and 90: Mr. Howard Miller April 8 , 2010 Pa
- Page 91 and 92: 125
- Page 93 and 94: 127
- Page 95 and 96: 129
- Page 97 and 98: 131
- Page 99 and 100: unaware 2 of this new rule or that
- Page 101 and 102: BARRY TARLow. BLAIR BERK MARK O. HE
- Page 103 and 104: 4, The Proposal a. Comment b. 5. Th
- Page 105 and 106: arrangement, has always been subjec
- Page 107 and 108: (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Par
- Page 109 and 110: edefines a widely accepted , and in
- Page 111 and 112: alone seek to prohibit , no version
- Page 113 and 114: meeting reflects that there was no
- Page 115 and 116: II. ANAL YSIS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PR
- Page 117 and 118: Responsibility and Conduct 10 They
- Page 119 and 120: . . " " I suggest we . . . have a c
- Page 121 and 122: agreed hourly or by an whether the
- Page 123 and 124: " " On , Paragraph flat fees" as th
- Page 125 and 126: arrangement with the inclusion of a
- Page 127 and 128: agreement, that result in the refun
- Page 129 and 130: the Commission s proposed paragraph
- Page 131 and 132: true if the fee anything but an abs
- Page 133 and 134: Restraining orders, fee forfeitures
- Page 135 and 136: fee is "the lawyer s property on re
Rex Heinke<br />
April 2 , 2010<br />
Page 2<br />
Proposed Rule 1.5(e)(2)<br />
make binding<br />
, leaves open the<br />
possibility that government agencies could require termination <strong>of</strong> counsel and return<br />
unused retainers, and could<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> what portion <strong>of</strong> a retainer need be returned relative to non-completed legal<br />
servICes.<br />
In sum, I would urge that we follow the old maxim if it isn t broken, don t fix it.<br />
Michael F. Perlis<br />
LA 51253795vl<br />
STROOCK<br />
202'1 CENTlIHY PARK EAST . LOS AN(;U. , CA 900()7- 30X(, TEL 3J(). 55(,. 5XOO EAX 310. 5)(,. 5'15\) WWW. STROOCK. COM<br />
120
Change language