Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

BARRY TARLOW.
BLAIR BERK
MARK O. HEANEY
MI KIM
DAVID HARRIS
.CBRTIPlED SPECIALIST - CBIMINAL LAw
STATE BAB OF CALIFOBNIA.
BOARD OF LBOAL SPECIALIZATION
Rex Heinke
Vice President - State Bar of California
Aldin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP\
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Dear Rex:
TARLOW &
9119 SUNSET BOULEVARD
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Re: Opposition to Proposed Rule 1. 5( e)( 1
April 29, 2010
(310) 278-2111
FAX (310) 550-7055
Enclosed for your review is my Opposition to Proposed Rule 1. 5( e)(1 )-(2).
of material you have received and will receive about the approximately 55 new rules, I thought it would be
helpful if I sent you this detailed factual and legal analysis of what the Commission has labeled "a very
controversial" (the highest level used by the
However, in reality there is no controversy among the Bar membership.
when the prior related proposals were rejected, the at large membership
abolishing nonrefundable retainers. These proposals were the
in 1991 , 1997 and 2008. In an attempt to give you sufficient time to analyze this comprehensive opposition
I have submitted it well in advance of the end of the June 15 2010 public comment period.
There are a number of policy , including
unnecessary interference in attorney-client relationships, the generation of increased client bar complaints
and civil litigation, the substantial economic impact on small and large law firms, increased unnecessary
accounting and record keeping, the resulting increase in legal fees, the need to preserve the availability of
civil and criminal legal services to the people of California including consumers oflow, fixed fee services
and to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes to retain the lawyer of their choice and the
right of civil litigants to be represented by any lawyer.
Rule l. 5( e), , will
drastically impact the economics of practicing law in California as well as the ability of people in need of
representation to obtain legal services. Considering the significance of the 2009 revisions to Rule 1. 5 ( e)( 1 )-
(2) (abolishing nonrefundable retainers) I am especially concerned that in apparent violation of State Bar
Rule 1. 10 (A) this novel version of Rule 1. 5 (e) (1 )-(2)
Rules of Professional Conduct ("Commission ) was neither publicized nor disseminated, in any manner prior
to its November 2009 approval by the Board of Governors . Therefore the membership of the Bar was
~ 1. 10 (A) requires proposals for the Rules of the State Bar of California to be circulated for public
comment "before adoption" by the Board of Governors. Rule l. 5( e)(1 )-(2)
exceptions in Rule 1. 10 B (1) for "clerical errors, (to J " or in Rule
10 (B) (2) that applies to "non-substantive modifications. " In addition, the minutes ofthe November 14
132