‼️
Prof Responsibility • Financial Duties
PR#009
Legal Definition
When dealing with a new client, or a client the lawyer has not regularly represented, the fee must be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.
Plain English Explanation
Lawyers are like any other professional you may hire, so you probably want to know how much they charge before you have them start working for you. The law doesn't want you caught off guard by legal fees, so when you hire a lawyer (especially if it's your first time working with them) they need to be upfront about how much they will charge you.
The lawyer doesn't have to tell you their fees the very second you meet them, but they should do it pretty quickly. Ideally, they'll tell you before they even start working on your case. If not, they should let you know soon after they begin.
Now, the rule says it's best if the lawyer writes down their fees for you. This way, you have a clear record and there's no confusion later on. But if they tell you verbally, that's okay too. The important thing is that you understand what you're going to be paying.
The lawyer doesn't have to tell you their fees the very second you meet them, but they should do it pretty quickly. Ideally, they'll tell you before they even start working on your case. If not, they should let you know soon after they begin.
Now, the rule says it's best if the lawyer writes down their fees for you. This way, you have a clear record and there's no confusion later on. But if they tell you verbally, that's okay too. The important thing is that you understand what you're going to be paying.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam, a first-time client, meets with Bob, a lawyer, to discuss representation in a divorce case. During their initial consultation, Bob explains his hourly rate and estimated costs. He follows up the next day with an email detailing the fee structure. Result: Bob has properly complied with the rule. He communicated the fee arrangement verbally during the initial meeting and followed up in writing within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.
Hypo 2: Bob takes on a new client, Sam, for a complex business litigation case. Bob begins working on the case immediately due to urgent deadlines. Two weeks later, he sends Sam an invoice for his services, which is the first time fees are mentioned. Result: Bob has likely violated the rule. He failed to communicate the fee arrangement to Sam before or within a reasonable time after beginning the representation. Two weeks of work before any fee discussion is probably not considered "reasonable time" in this context.
Hypo 3: Sam, a long-time client of Bob's for personal legal matters, asks Bob to represent his new startup company. Bob assumes the same fee structure will apply and begins work without discussing fees. Result: Bob may be in violation of the rule. Even though Sam is a regular client, this is a new matter in a different area of law. Bob should have communicated the fee arrangement for this specific representation, as it might differ from their usual arrangement.
Hypo 4: Bob agrees to represent Sam in a small claims court case. During their first phone call, Bob verbally explains his flat fee for such cases. He doesn't send anything in writing, assuming the verbal explanation is sufficient. Result: Bob has likely complied with the rule, but his actions are not ideal. While written communication is preferred, the rule allows for verbal communication of fees. Bob explained the fees before starting representation, which satisfies the basic requirement.
Hypo 5: Sam walks into Bob's office seeking immediate help with an emergency restraining order. Bob explains his fees quickly before getting to work on the urgent matter. The next day, he sends Sam a detailed fee agreement. Result: Bob has properly complied with the rule. Given the urgent nature of the matter, Bob communicated the fees verbally before starting work and followed up with written documentation within a reasonable time.
Hypo 2: Bob takes on a new client, Sam, for a complex business litigation case. Bob begins working on the case immediately due to urgent deadlines. Two weeks later, he sends Sam an invoice for his services, which is the first time fees are mentioned. Result: Bob has likely violated the rule. He failed to communicate the fee arrangement to Sam before or within a reasonable time after beginning the representation. Two weeks of work before any fee discussion is probably not considered "reasonable time" in this context.
Hypo 3: Sam, a long-time client of Bob's for personal legal matters, asks Bob to represent his new startup company. Bob assumes the same fee structure will apply and begins work without discussing fees. Result: Bob may be in violation of the rule. Even though Sam is a regular client, this is a new matter in a different area of law. Bob should have communicated the fee arrangement for this specific representation, as it might differ from their usual arrangement.
Hypo 4: Bob agrees to represent Sam in a small claims court case. During their first phone call, Bob verbally explains his flat fee for such cases. He doesn't send anything in writing, assuming the verbal explanation is sufficient. Result: Bob has likely complied with the rule, but his actions are not ideal. While written communication is preferred, the rule allows for verbal communication of fees. Bob explained the fees before starting representation, which satisfies the basic requirement.
Hypo 5: Sam walks into Bob's office seeking immediate help with an emergency restraining order. Bob explains his fees quickly before getting to work on the urgent matter. The next day, he sends Sam a detailed fee agreement. Result: Bob has properly complied with the rule. Given the urgent nature of the matter, Bob communicated the fees verbally before starting work and followed up with written documentation within a reasonable time.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
How does California rule on fee splitting differ from the ABA?
How may a contingent fee be calculated?
In California, how and when must a lawyer determine fee arrangements with a new client?
In California, what constitutes "reasonable fees"?
Under the ABA, which types of cases are prohibited from contingent fee arrangements?
What constitutes "reasonable fees"?
What is a contingency fee?
What is required to fee split with another lawyer not in their firm?
What must a contingent fee offer warn the client of, and how?
