Sep 14, 1992 · Rule 4-200 Fees for Legal Services. (A) A member shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or unconscionable fee. (B) Unconscionability of a fee shall be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement is entered into except where the parties contemplate that the fee will ...
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ... Rules of Professional Conduct and other law. (See, e.g., rules 1.1, 1.8.1, 5.6; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.35-3.37 [limited scope rules applicable in civil matters generally], 5.425 ... In complying with this rule, a lawyer shall not violate the lawyer’s duty under Business and Professions Code ...
May 12, 2017 · The court found that even though the attorney did not actually collect the fee, that the violation still occurred. ... California Rules of Professional Conduct: 4-200; Matter of Silverton (Rev.Dept. 2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 252, 257 ... The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed ...
The California Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to regulate professional conduct of attorneys licensed by the State Bar through discipline. They have been adopted by the Board of Trustees and approved by the California Supreme Court pursuant to statute to protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession ...
A lawyer shall not , without informed written consent* from each client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter.
[1] The requirement that the sale be of “all or substantially* all of the law practice of a lawyer” prohibits the sale of only a field or area of practice or the seller’s practice in a geographical area or in a particular jurisdiction. The prohibition against the sale of less than all or substantially* all of a practice protects those clients whose matters are less lucrative and who might find it difficult to secure other counsel if a sale could be limited to substantial* fee-generating matters. The purchasers are required to undertake all client matters sold in the transaction, subject to client consent. This requirement is satisfied, however, even if a purchaser is unable to undertake a particular client matter because of a conflict of interest.
A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows* is criminal, fraudulent,* or a violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.*
lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client, or knowingly* acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless each of the following requirements has been satisfied:
[1] A lawyer or a person* related to a lawyer may accept a gift from the lawyer’s client, subject to general standards of fairness and absence of undue influence. A lawyer also does not violate this rule merely by engaging in conduct that might result in a client making a gift, such as by sending the client a wedding announcement. Discipline is appropriate where impermissible influence occurs. (See Magee v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 423 [24 Cal.Rptr. 839].)
A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly purchase property at a probate, foreclosure, receiver’s, trustee’s, or judicial sale in an action or proceeding in which such lawyer or any lawyer affiliated by reason of personal, business, or professional relationship with that lawyer or with that lawyer’s law firm* is acting as a lawyer for a party or as executor, receiver, trustee, administrator, guardian, or conservator.
[1] After termination of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer owes two duties to a former client. The lawyer may not (i) do anything that will injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which the lawyer represented the former client, or (ii) at any time use against the former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811 [124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256]; Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564 [15 P.2d 505].) For example, (i) a lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client and (ii) a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person* could not represent the accused in a subsequent civil action against the government concerning the same matter. (See also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6131; 18 U.S.C. § 207(a).) These duties exist to preserve a client’s trust in the lawyer and to encourage the client’s candor in communications with the lawyer.
Although many While the “joint responsibility” provision may allow a lawyer to accept a “referral fee” even if the lawyer performs no work, such fees come at a cost. As a comment to the rule notes, “joint responsibility ” means financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership.” Rule 1.5, Cmt. 7. That means that, if the lawyer accepts the fee, the lawyer may also be jointly responsible
At their outset, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (referenced herein throughout as the “Model Rules” or, individual, the “Rule”) require lawyers to serve their clients with competence (Rule 1.1), diligence (Rule 1.3) and loyalty – requiring them to avoid, or at least disclose, ways in which the attorney’s interests may conflict with those of the client. See, generally, Model Rules 1.6-1.8. The attorney-client relationship is also commercial, with the attorney typically entitled to demand payment from the client for services rendered. That commercial relationship inherently creates the potential for conflict. No matter how much the client may appreciate the attorney’s work, it would always be in the client’s best interests to avoid paying for it. Similarly, as much as the attorney may be motivated by genuine respect and admiration for the client, the attorney could always be paid more.
The very factors that make attorneys’ services valuable – their knowledge of the law and the specialized training that leads their clients to place trust in them – lead to special scrutiny of attorneys’ payment relationships. The attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary relationship and, just as in other fiduciary relationship, the attorney’s dealings with the beneficiary – the client – are subject to special legal scrutiny. As one Illinois court has put it: The law places special obligations upon an attorney by virtue of the relationship between attorney and client. Those obligations are summed up and referred to generally as the fiduciary duty of the attorney. They permeate all phases of the relationship, including the contract for payment.
Attorneys commonly use retainers to secure payment of their legal fees and costs. The word “retainer,” however, has a variety of different meanings – and those different meanings result in different application of the relevant ethical rules.
Under Rule 1.5(a) a lawyer may not “make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee.” By its terms, the rule requires reasonableness to be assessed not only at the time the fee agreement is entered, but also when attorneys bill for services or attempt to collect the fees they are owed by the client. It is therefore possible to violate Rule 1.5 if an attorney seeks to enforce a fee agreement that, while reasonable at the time, was rendered unreasonable by subsequent events. For example, in In re Gerard, 132 Ill.2d 507, 548 N.E.2d 1051 (1989), a lawyer was found to have violated Rule 1.5 after charging a contingency fee based on the value of account assets located for an elderly client. While, at the time the lawyer had been hired, the client had believed accounts were being wrongfully withheld from him, in fact the accounts were not the subject of any adverse claim, but were turned over willingly by the banks holding them once they learned of the client’s whereabouts – requiring little in the way of attorney professional services. More generally, fees are frequently found to be unreasonable when the lawyer does not perform competent work, or neglects a matter, but nevertheless seeks to be paid the full fee for which he or she has contracted. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 224, 46 A.3d 1169, 1178 (2012); Rose v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 425 S.W.3d 889, 891 (Ky. 2014).