Current rule 3-310(F) prohibits a member from accepting compensation from one other than the client unless there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the duty of confidentiality owed to a client. The rule is intended to protect the client in situations where the lawyer’s independent professional judgment may become compromised based upon the lawyer’s fees being paid by one other than the client. Proposed rule 1.8.6 retains the substance of current rule 3-310(F) while expanding the public protection of the current rule. The proposed rule expands the current language of “accepting compensation” to include “enter into an agreement for or charge or accept compensation.”
Full Answer
The Rules of Professional Conduct authorize a lawyer to accept compensation from someone other than a client under the following circumstances: The client consents after consultation or acceptance of the compensation is impliedly authorized by the nature of the representation (i.e., public defender, legal aid or pro bono representation;
Rule 1.8.6 Compensation from One Other than Client (Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (a) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment or
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship (Rules 1.1 – 1.18) 1 Rule 1.1 Competence (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence. (b) For purposes of this rule, “competence” in any legal service shall mean to apply the (i)
The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC or the Rules) allow a lawyer to provide legal services to a client and to accept payment for those services from a third party, as long as the requirements of Colo. RPC 1.8(f) are satisfied: The client must give informed consent, there must be no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment
Current rule 3-310(F) prohibits a member from accepting compensation from one other than the client unless there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the duty of confidentiality owed to a client. The rule is intended to protect the client in situations where the lawyer’s independent professional judgment may become compromised based upon the lawyer’s fees being paid by one other than the client. Proposed rule 1.8.6 retains the substance of current rule 3-310(F) while expanding the public protection of the current rule. The proposed rule expands the current language of “accepting compensation” to include “enter into an agreement for or charge or accept compensation.”
In addition, the Commission considered the national standard of ABA Model Rule 1.8(f) (Conflict of Interest Current Clients: Specific Rules), pertaining to accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client. The result of the Commission’s evaluation is proposed rule 1.8.6 (Compensation From One Other Than Client).
[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.
Subject to rule 1.2.1, a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by rule 1.4, shall reasonably* consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule 1.6, a lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. Except as otherwise provided by law in a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
A person* who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from the lawyer in the lawyer’s professional capacity, is a prospective client.
[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.
[1] A lawyer has an “other pecuniary interest adverse to a client” within the meaning of this rule when the lawyer possesses a legal right to significantly impair or prejudice the client’s rights or interests without court action. (See Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61, 68 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 58]; see also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6175.3 [Sale of financial products to elder or dependent adult clients; Disclosure]; Fam. Code, §§ 2033-2034 [Attorney lien on community real property].)However, this rule does not apply to a charging lien given to secure payment of a contingency fee. (See Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLP (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 38 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 455].)
The duty of undivided loyalty to a current client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client’s informed written consent.* Thus, absent consent, a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one matter against a person* the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated. (See Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537].) A directly adverse conflict under paragraph (a) can arise in a number of ways, for example, when: (i) a lawyer accepts representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflict; (ii) a lawyer, while representing a client, accepts in another matter the representation of a person* who, in the first matter, is directly adverse to the lawyer’s client; or (iii) a lawyer accepts representation of a person* in a matter in which an opposing party is a client of the lawyer or the lawyer’s law firm.* Similarly, direct adversity can arise when a lawyer cross-examines a non-party witness who is the lawyer’s client in another matter, if the examination is likely to harm or embarrass the witness. On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require informed written consent* of the respective clients.
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.
A legal practitioner must ensure that the legal practitioner’s professional conduct is always consistent with the values of the legal profession in each jurisdiction in which the legal practitioner is qualified to practise law and , when giving advice in any other jurisdiction, the values of the legal profession in that other jurisdiction.
A legal practitioner has a duty to discharge honourably and with integrity all of the legal practitioner’s responsibilities to any tribunal before which the legal practitioner appears, the legal practitioner’s clients, the public and other members of the legal profession.
A legal practitioner must uphold the laws of Singapore in the legal practitioner’s practice. A legal practitioner must facilitate the access of members of the public to justice. A legal practitioner must be fair and courteous towards every person in respect of the legal practitioner’s professional conduct.
10) or section 2 (1) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A); “unauthorised person” has the same meaning as in section 32 (2) of the Act.
1. These Rules may be cited as the Legal Profession (Deposit Interest) Rules. 2.—. (1) Subject to rule 4 , a solicitor who receives any money exceeding the threshold amount for or on account of any particular client to hold in the applicable circumstances —.
any commission of inquiry or committee of inquiry appointed under the Inquiries Act (Cap. 139A), or any committee of inquiry or board of inquiry appointed under any other written law;
the legal practitioner discloses the information in confidence to a provider or broker of the legal practitioner’s professional indemnity insurance, in connection with any claim or potential claim, or any complaint or potential complaint, by any person against the legal practitioner ; or.