Advisory Opinion:
1900D
Year Issued:
2000
RPC(s):
RPC 1.2(a); 1.4; 1.5; Informal Opinion 1732
Subject:
Contingent fee agreement; division of property acquired by unmarried parties
You asked the committee whether a dispute concerning the division of property acquired by parties who are not married (and who were not married during the time the property was acquired) may be handled by a lawyer acting under a contingency fee agreement. In making the inquiry, the inquirer expressed concerns about greed among members of the bar and concerns that a lawyer may be reluctant to settle a case when he or she is to be compensated in that matter.
We conclude that RPC 1.5(d) does not prohibit contingency fee agreements in such an instance as the inquirer describes. Moreover, with respect to the concerns raised as to the incentives of lawyers in contingent fee cases, the committee observes that RPC 1.5(a) requires fees to be reasonable; that RPC 1.5(a)(8) requires that the client must receive a reasonable and fair disclosure of the material elements of the fee agreement; that RPC 1.5(c)(1) requires contingent fee agreements to be in writing; that RPC 1.4 requires the lawyer to keep the client informed about a matter sufficiently to make informed decisions regarding the matter; and, finally, that RPC 1.2(a) requires a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation, including the client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.
The committee hopes this explains previous Informal Opinion 1732 more adequately and alleviates the inquirer’s concerns.
***
