"Anybody can become angry; that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power; that is not easy." -- Aristotle.
Rule 1.5 Fees
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers
performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(b) When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis
or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in
writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the
service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is
prohibited by paragraph (d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement
shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be
determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to
the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, litigation and
other expenses to be deducted from the recovery, and whether such
expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee is
calculated. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer
shall provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of
the matter and, if there is a recovery, showing the remittance to the
client and the method of its determination.
(d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or
(1) any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of
which is contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of
alimony or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof; or
(2) a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case.
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may
be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each
lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes
joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation
of all the lawyers involved; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
II. ABA MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DR 2-106 Fees for Legal Services.
(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect
an illegal or clearly excessive fee.
(b) A fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a
lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm
conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee. Factors to be
considered as guides in determining the reasonableness of a fee include
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances.
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the
(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers
performing the services;
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(C) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or
collect a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal
III. CALIFORNIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
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 in
entered into except where the parties contemplate that the fee will be
affected by later events. Among the factors to be considered, where
appropriate, in determining the conscionability of a fee are the
(1) The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services
(2) The relative sophistication of the member and the client.
(3) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill
requisite to perform the legal service properly.
(4) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will preclude other employment by the member.
(5) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(6) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
(7) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the
(8) The experience, reputation, and ability of the member or members
performing the services.
(9) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(10) The time and labor required.
(11) The informed consent of the client to the fee.
IV. OTHER CALIFORNIA STATUTES REGULATING ATTORNEY'S FEES:
Business & Professions Code ( hereafter "B&P") Section 6146 limits and
controls attorneys fees in medical malpractice actions.
B&P Section 6147 regulates contingency fee agreements (excluding
workers' compensation proceedings), requires disclosure of information
concerning malpractice insurance of the attorney, makes the agreement
avoidable at the option of the client for noncompliance by the attorney,
but does not regulate the actual contingent fee charged.
B&P Section 6147.5 controls and regulates the contingent fees chargeable
in claims between merchants as defined in the Commercial Code, imposing
maximums where there is no written agreement, and minimums.
B&P Section 6148 requires that in non-contingency fees, where "it is
reasonably foreseeable" that the attorney's fees and expenses will
exceed $1,000 that there shall be a written fee agreement, that the
attorney disclose malpractice insurance/guarantee information, and that
in the event of noncompliance the client may avoid the agreement.
(Note: In the event the client voids the fee agreements provided for in
B&P 6147 or 6148, the attorney shall be entitled to collect a reasonable
B&P 6149 makes the written attorney fee agreement a confidential
B&P 6149.5 requires insurers to report to natural person claimants
settlements over $100 delivered to the claimant's lawyer.
B&P 6200 establishes a program of mandatory attorney-client fee
arbitration which, when requested by the client is binding on the
attorney. Where the attorney has brought an action for fees against the
client, the client may obtain an automatic stay of the action; gives
jurisdiction to the State Bar to place an attorney failing to satisfy an
award on inactive enrollment, and also to award penalties against the
attorney of 20% of the award or $1,000, whichever is greater, and which
penalty becomes part of the member's dues for the next year.
C.C.P. 86 gives municipal and justice courts jurisdiction to conduct
trials or to confirm, correct or vacate attorney-client fee arbitration
awards; C.C.P. 116.220 gives small claims courts jurisdiction where the
fee arbitration award "does not exceed five thousand dollars".
(Note: The foregoing is not an all inclusive list. Certain other state
and/or federal statutes regulate attorney's fees in specialized areas
such as bankruptcy and probate proceedings, and see for example Labor
Code 4906(b) in workers' compensation proceedings, but contrast C.C.P.
1021, which provides "Except as attorney's fees are specifically
provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of
attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or
implied, of the parties;..."
V. ABA MODEL RULES COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION:
ABA MODEL RULES, RULE 1.5, COMMENT : Furnishing the client with a
simple memorandum or a copy of the lawyer's customary fee schedule is
sufficient if the basis or rate of the fee is set forth. (but compare
California B&P Code, which requires a more extensive written retainer
agreement in covered matters).
COMMENT  A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is
obligated to return any unearned portion. A lawyer may accept property
in payment for services (caveat-where the interest may be in the cause
of action or litigation, or adverse to the interests of the client; see
e.g. model rule 1.8)
COMMENT ..[A] lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby
services are to be provided only up to a stated amount...[O]therwise,
the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of
a proceeding or transaction. A lawyer should not exploit a fee
arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful
VI ABA MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMENTS:
Charging a "clearly excessive fee" is grounds for discipline. State ex
rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Richards, 165 Neb. 80, 90, 84 N.W.2d
136, 143 (1957) See also fn. 88 "An attorney has the right to contract
for any fee he chooses so long as it is not excessive...and this
Committee is not concerned with the amount of such fees unless so
excessive as to constitute a misappropriation of the client's funds (see
Opinion 27", ABA Opinion 320 (1968)
The prudent attorney standard: note that ABA'S DR-2-106 makes a "lawyer
of ordinary prudence" the standard for determining whether a fee is
"clearly excessive", but what about if not clearly excessive? Could a
layperson determine simple excessiveness?
VII CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY:
Unlike the ABA Rules, California does not employ the "lawyer of ordinary
prudence" standard used by the ABA to determine whether a fee is
unconscionable, but merely provides:
"Rule 4-200(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..." (Thereafter follows a list of eleven
points to be considered in determining the conscionability of a fee [see
R.P.C. Rule 4-200 (B)(1) through (11)] )
A. Attempting to collect fees in excess of relevant statutory fees:
In the Matter of Riley, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 91 (1994), the Review
Department discusses, inter alia, an attorney's attempt to circumvent
the relevant provisions of the Probate Code relating to prior court
approval for minor's attorney's fees. The Review Department stated:
"Where a statutory scheme requires a tribunal to approve the fees
charged by counsel in a matter, it constitutes professional misconduct
for an attorney to secure or attempt to secure fees in excess of those
allowed by the [tribunal]'(citations)"
We can therefore conclude that an attorney's attempts to charge a fee in
excess of that allowed by statute, or that allowed by a tribunal,
constitutes either (or both) an illegal or unconscionable fee, and
grounds for disciplinary action.
In Coviello vs. State Bar (1953) 41 Cal.2d 273, the attorney in a
State Bar disciplanary action was charged with two counts by the State
Bar. Count one alleged that the attorney had charged and received from
a client in an industrial injury case a fee in excess of that awarded by
the Industrial Accident Commission. Count two alleged the attorney
attempted to modify his original retainer to charge a client a fee in
excess of that originally agreed to and charge instead the larger
statutory probate fee.
The Supreme Court held, with respect to the attorney's charging and
collecting a fee larger than that awarded by the Industrial Accident
...it constitutes professional misconduct for an attorney to secure or
attempt to secure fees in excess of those allowed by the commission..."
As to the probate matter, it appears the attorney and client initially
entered into a written agreement to perform certain probate work on
behalf of the client, for the agreed fee of $150. After beginning work
on the case, it appeared the attorney had to perform additional work, in
part because the client misstated the value of the estate, because
additional heirs existed, and because the client had gone to a safe
deposit box without the inheritance tax appraiser, and because of other
joint tenancy property which had to be cleared.
The attorney wrote to the client, pointed out the extra services
required, and stated he'd accept the statutory probate fee. In the
probate petition, petitioner-attorney disclosed he had been paid $150 by
the client "on account".
It appears the controversy between attorney and client arose due to the
attorney's attempt to change the terms of the retainer, and accept
instead of the originally agreed sum, a statutory fee over 3 times
larger, for the additional work required.
With respect to seeking an additional fee in the probate matter, The
Supreme Court stated: "It is clear that petitioner had bona fide grounds
for requesting additional fees...His testimony that Mrs. Hughes
misrepresented the value of the property to him is
substantiated...Petitioner was also required to perform some
unanticipated services. Under these circumstances he was justified in
seeking a modification of the original agreement...it cannot be said
that he sought to mislead the probate court by failing to inform it of
the original contract..."
The result was that as to the count involving the additional fees in the
industrial injury case, the attorney was subject to discipline, however
in the probate matter, he was justified in charging the additional fee
equal to the statutory fee, giving the client a credit for the sum
previously paid, as the client's conduct indicated she had agreed to his
proposed modification of their original contract.
We can conclude here that attempting to, or charging and collecting a
fee in excess of those allowed by statute or a particular tribunal may
be grounds for discipline. Lkewise, attempting to circumvent statutes
or regulations limiting or fixing attorney's fees may also give rise to
discipline for ethical improprieties.
B. Attempts to collect a minimum fee on discharge in contingency fee
In the Matter of Scapa and Brown, 2 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 635, the
Review Department discusses respondent-attorneys' practice of accepting
"contingency fee" cases but requiring in their written retainer
agreement that clients who discharged the firm were committed to a
"minimum of $600 of legal fees" if they discharged respondents, and
regardless of whether any work was done to justify this minimum fee:
"Our Supreme Court has condemned the conduct of attorneys who
overreached clients because of unethical fee practices. In Hulland v.
State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 440, the Court observed that the "legal profession
is 'more than a mere"money-getting trade"...Twice over 40 years, the
Court has observed that 'the right to practice law "is not a license to
mulct the unfortunate" (Bushman v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 558..."
In Scapa and Brown, when clients discharged the firm, regardless of the
amount of work done, if any, the firm attempted to assert a lien for
attorney's fees of $600 minimum or more, regardless of the reasonable
value of their services, "by charging exorbitant amounts for perfunctory
services performed almost entirely by support staff..." (Scapa and
Brown, supra, at 654).
This conduct earned the respondent attorneys an actual suspension of 18
months. We can conclude from the "minimum fee" provisions of Scapa and
Brown's retainer agreement, that regardless of the fees set forth in a
retainer agreement, an attorney may only be entitled, on discharge, to
the reasonable value of the attorney's services.
We can draw a conclusion that in contingency fee cases, where the lawyer
is discharged before the contingency materializes, the lawyer is only
entitled to the reasonable value of his/her services; regardless of any
provisions to the contrary in the retainer agreement.
C. Obtaining a default judgment against client for fees when still
attorney of record:
In Hulland v. State Bar (1972) 8 Cal.3d 440, the attorney was retained
to represent the client in a divorce matter. The client signed both a
"request for services" and a confession of judgment in the sum of $650
for "money justly due for legal services". The client paid $130 to
attorney, and the case commenced.
Thereafter, the client left a tax refund check with attorney. The
attorney testified he thought the tax refund check was either security
for, or for his fees. The client testified she brought it to him for
"safekeeping". When the tax refund check was presented to client by
attorney to endorse, she instead kept it, did not endorse it, and left
A dispute arose between attorney and client as to whether attorney still
represented client. Attorney's office advised cllient unless client
endorsed check for attorney's fees, attorney would not appear at a
scheduled hearing; client replied she'd get another attorney.
Attorney's staff had client sign a substitution of attorneys but did not
file it at that time.
Thereafter, attorney had the hearing taken off calendar, subsequently
filing the confession of judgment previously signed by the client, and
obtaining a default judgment against client in the sum of $650 plus
interests and costs. The substitution of attorneys was filed after the
State Bar contacted attorney following client's complaint.
The Supreme Court ennunciated:
"Wilful failure to perform legal services...in itself warrants
disciplinary action...the local committee properly found that petitioner
wilfully failed to render the promised services, hoping thereby to
compel Mrs. Sneed to turn the check over to him.
"When an attorney, in his zeal to insure the collection of his fee,
assumes a position inimical to the interests of his client, he violates
his duty of fidelity to this client...Petitioner's wilful failure to
render the service for which he was retained and his assumption of a
position contrary to his client's interests clearly warrant public
Petitioner used a confession of judgment to the detriment of his
client...in an oppressive and overreaching attempt to collect unearned
It is of some importance in Hulland that the court found that he had
wilfully faled to render services for which he was retained, in as much
as he was not substituted out of the case until after he had taken the
hearing off calendar and obtained a judgment against the client.
The court instructs us that Hulland was entitled only to the reasonable
value of his services up to the time of his discharge, not the full
amount of the contract. Here, the quantum meruit value of the
attorney's services was $495, and crediting $90 of the client's payment
($130 less $40 costs), the balance due for the reasonable value of his
services was $405, but he used the confession of judgment in an effort
to collect a larger sum.
The Supreme Court continued:
"Surely the legal profession is more than a mere 'money getting
trade'...it at least requires the rendition of services for any payment
received. ...Attempting to collect money for services not to be
performed is merely one step removed (from the offense of obtaining
money by false pretenses)...The effort to collect unearned fees becomes
highly oppressive and deteimental to the client when the attorney arms
his demands with the force and weight of a judgment...thus prevents his
client from contesting the reasonableness of the fees before the
Here, it appears a dispute arose between the attorney and client
concerning additional fees. It was not disputed that the attorney
performed some services, filed pleadings on behalf of the client, and
obtained a hearing date. Once the dispute arose over the tax refund
check, the attorney had the client sign a substitution of attorneys but
did not file it and remained her attorney of record, retaining her file.
Instead, he proceeded to take the hearing off calendar, and obtained a
default judgment against the cilent. This is a broader form of
misconduct than simply attempting to obtain an excessive fee, in that he
took a position adverse to his client, and failed to perform services
(i.e., the hearing taken off calendar).
The moral as to attorney's fees from Hulland appears to be, if you
collect the fee, do the work it represents. If you don't do the work,
return the "unearned" portion of the fee, and if your client signs a
substitution of attorneys, file it and deliver a copy of the file to the
client or successor attorney.
In Hulland, there were several issues presented, including not only the
charges in excess of a reasonable sum for attorney's fees, but failure
to perform legal services for which retained, and the taking of a
position adverse to the client.
D. Unconscionable fees; generally:
In Bushman v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 558, the attorney was
disciplined for, inter alia, collecting an exorbitant and unconscionable
The attorney was retained to represent a party in an action "for
divorce and custody of a minor child of the marriage."
The attorney had client sign a retainer providing for an hourly fee, and
also a promissory note for $300 forthwith and the balance at $50 a
month. Attorney advised client his policy was that a minimum retainer
of $5,000 was required "whenever attorney Chern was the opposing
counsel in a custory matter...without regard to the time spent by
Bushman on the case...because Mrs. Chern would generate a 'paper war' "
Opposing counsel, however, billed for only 5 1/2 hours of work . The
court here found Bushman's legal services consisted of:
"...nothing unusual or novel...Bushman filed...a demurrer, cross-
complaint, petition for appointment of a guardian-ad-litem, and
stipulation to a...report, as well as an answer to the complaint, and a
declaration of points and authorities. He attended two hearings on
orders to show cause, and subpoenaed and interviewed a doctor."
In attempting to justify his fee, Bushman claimed he spent over 100
hours on the case, and billed the clients for $2,800 plus costs. The
Supreme Court found the reasonable value of his fee was the sum awarded
in the divorce as attorney's fees by the trial court; i.e. $300 plus
The Supreme Court held:
"The fees charged, and those which Bushman attempted to collect, were
excessive, overreaching, exorbitant, and unconscionable...
It is settled that gross overcharge of a fee by an attorney may
warrant discipline. The test is whether the fee is 'so exorbitant and
wholly disproportionate to the serivces performed as to shock the
The court in Bushman commented on the fact that as to the promissory
note, there was no provision to cancel same, and at the time of the
State Bar proceeding, Bushman apparently still had it in his possession.
The court commented that even at his hourly rate specified in the
retainer agreement, the $2,800 charge did not represent 100 hours of
work in a routine case without novel issues.
Lessons we may learn from Mr. Bushman's 1 year suspension can include
(1) it's a risky practice to take a security interest adverse to your
clients to secure a fee; (2) charging for up to 20 times the time spent
by opposing counsel in the same case may be unreasonable; (3) where a
trial court awards a sum certain to your client as attorney's fees, that
sum may later be determined to be the reasonable value of your
attorney's fees. You may wish to request the language of any such
attonney's fee order provides that the fees ordered shall be a credit
against fees due you from the client, and not determinative of the
reasonable value of your legal services.
Of course, attorneys can't always be limited by the work (or lack
thereof) done by opposing counsel. A problem for Bushman was that he
claimed 100 hours, but couldn't substantiate it, and even his own
billings at his regular rates were considerably less than 100 hours in a
case the Supreme Court characterized as nothing novel or unusual.
VIII CLOSING CONCLUSIONS ON ATTORNEY'S FEES:
Obtain a copy of your jurisdiction's Rules of Professional
Responsibility; become familiar with their provisions regarding
When practicing before courts and tribunals with authority to fix and
determine attorney's fees, don't attempt to obtain fees in excess of
those set; whether for the same or another matter. If you represent the
client on another matter for which fees are due, have the client pay
separately for the other matter.
In contingent fee cases, if the client discharges you before the
contingency occurs, make counsel and the other interested parties aware
of your lien for the reasonable vaule of your fees (without breaching
client confidences). You wouldn't otherwise get paid before the
contingency materialized, so why try to do so before the case settles?
It setting your attorney's fees, remember you may be called upon to
justify them, especially if a dispute arises with the client over fees.
Attorney fee disputes are a leading cause of malpractice claims. Where
the attorney sues for fees, clients frequently cross-complain for
Where the client is on the defensive and resisting your claims for fees,
you should decide whether you can objectively justify the amount you
seek, and whether it's worth a potential malpractice claim or discipline
from your state bar.
Excerpted from material by The Institute for Continuing Legal Education
A CLE provider for California - 1-800-356-6438
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource for Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
No one connected with the 'Lectric Law Library, including Sponsors, Advertisers, & Content Providers,
necessarily Endorses, Warrants or Approves of any of its material. Also, Library content is NOT meant
to provide Specific Legal Advice, or to Solicit or Establish Any Kind of Professional-Client Relationship.