![]() ![]() Deferring disclosure and client consent to the time the fee is divided denies the client a meaningful opportunity to consider the concerns the rule is intended to address. are intended to further assure the client’s representation is not adversely affected as a result of an agreement to divide a fee. Case law has held that client consent to the fee division need not be obtained until the fee is actually divided, which might not occur until years after the lawyers entered into their agreement. Under former Rule 2-200, there was no express requirement that the agreement between the lawyers be in writing. Rule 1.5.1 implements two significant changes to the former rule 2-200 intended to increase client protection: first, the agreement between the lawyers to divide a fee must now be in writing and second, a new timing mandate requires the client to consent in writing to the division after a full disclosure of the contemplated fee sharing at or near the time the lawyers enter into the agreement to divide the fee. Rule 1.5.1 includes pure “referral” fees, as well as where the attorneys share work on the case. This article focuses on California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5.1, which took effect November 1, 2018, and regulates fee sharing by lawyers who are not in the same law firm. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |