Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

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