Since „it is always possible for a lawyer to have to repay some or any type of indemnity in advance when the solicitor-client relationship ends before the proposed services are provided,” it is „false and misleading, in violation of Rule 7.1,” to characterize such a payment as „non-refundable fees.” In addition, the classification of the royalty as „non-refundable” in the royalty contract has a deterrent effect on the client`s [absolute] right to terminate his representation at any time. 2000 FEO 5) In Opinion 611 (2011) of the Commission on Professional Ethics, it says: „[i]t is not authorized by Texan disciplinary rules: That a lawyer include in an employment contract an agreement that the amount paid by a client for a case is a „non-refundable withholding” if that amount includes the payment of counsel`s services in that case up to the date of trial. 29 Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, E.R. 1.5, comment 7; See also Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42; E.R. 1.16 (d), „At the end of the representation, a lawyer takes steps to the extent reasonably possible to protect the client`s interests, such as appropriate disclosure to the client.
B, the granting of time for the employment of another legal advisor, the handing over of documents and property to which the client is entitled, and the reimbursement of advances of an unearned sum. (Added highlight.) Even if a commitment retainer is earned after receipt, it is refunded. However, this seems inconsistent. The only way to reconcile these principles is to realize that what the client receives immediately is not so much availability or priority – which is by nature forward-looking – but rather the immaterial peace of mind that accompanies the attorney`s promise of availability or priority. A characteristic of identification of a commitment retainer is what it is not: it is not compensation for legal services. (In a comment on Colo. RPC 1.5 states that „the commission is only an engagement guardian if the lawyer must be compensated in addition for the work actually done, if any.” A lawyer must bill separately for the legal services provided. In addition, in the circumstances, a lawyer must justify a non-refundable retention obligation, like any other legal fee, by its adequacy – including if the lawyer refuses new submissions or postpones other current matters of the client in order to be available to the non-refundable paying client. Generally speaking, genuine non-refundable storage people are rare, as most lawyers cannot easily prove that they refuse or will defer other cases to be available to the selected client.
The timing of payment is important not only to stay afloat, but also for future growth. Think of a lawyer with a national appeal practice that offers low-cost lump sum claims and who, through aggressive marketing and relentless networking, has initiated $10 5,000. If the money were treated as earned, the lawyer would have $50,000 in cash to hire one or two independent lawyers to start working on the letters. By adding additional help, the lawyer would be released to pursue marketing for more business in order to generate even more revenue. On the other hand, if the lawyer is forced to put the money into the trust account, she might not have the ability to stop helping and would turn with the job of designing ten letters over the course of a month or worse. And even if the briefing is over, the lawyer would release only a portion of the payments, not all of the costs. The „priority” is similar to availability. Sometimes a lawyer gives priority to a client to comply with his agreement to be available to that client. Sometimes, it simply means that the lawyer agrees to do the client`s work before the work of others and without taking into account the lawyer`s other professional or personal obligations.
