ILNews

IBA: Eliminate Surprises; Use Caution and Care When Changing Fee Agreements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Bell James Bell

By James J. Bell

It’s a typical case and the potential client and you have agreed to a flat fee of $10,000 for the entire representation. However, as the case trudges through the system, the case requires more work than expected. You should get paid for the extra work, right?

You awkwardly approach the client, explain the situation and ask for an additional $5,000. There is a pause and then a smile creeps across your client’s face. “Of course you can have an additional $5000!” the client exclaims. After all, the client loves you. He agrees that the case has become a bear, that you are doing an outstanding job and that you have earned even more than the requested $5,000. In fact, he is willing to give you $6,000.

The client dives for his checkbook and hastily writes you a check. You memorialize the entire transaction in writing, it is signed by your client and the additional $6,000 is yours. Just to make sure there are no hard feelings, the client even gives you a hug. Everyone is happy. So there is no way you just violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, is there?

Unfortunately, you have violated the Rules if you failed to advise the client to seek the advice of independent legal counsel before agreeing to the new fee agreement and if you did not otherwise fulfill the requirements of Rule 1.8(a) pertaining to “business transactions” with your client. Some lawyers may be surprised to learn that changing a fee in the middle of a case is considered a “business transaction” by our Supreme Court and Disciplinary Commission. However, because you are about to endure this entire article, you will not be one of those “surprised lawyers.”

The first “surprising” aspect of Rule 1.8(a) is that it never specifically mentions anything about the modification of a fee agreement. That language is reserved for the Comment. Furthermore, the language pertaining to modifications of a fee agreement does not appear in the Comment to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and therefore, it is unlikely you were taught this topic in law school or tested on this subject on the MPRE. Aren’t surprises wonderful?

The language of Comment states that 1.8(a) “applies when a lawyer seeks to renegotiate the terms of the fee arrangement with the client after representation begins in order to reach a new agreement that is more advantageous to the lawyer than the initial fee arrangement.” Comment to 1.8[1]. To be clear, Rule 1.8(a) “does not apply to ordinary initial fee arrangements between client and lawyer” because there is no established attorney-client relationship. Id. However, once a trusting relationship is established, the Comment to 1.8(a) serves to curb the “possibility of overreaching” by sophisticated lawyers. Id.

So if you still want to change the fee to one that is more advantageous to you, then you must follow 1.8(a) to the letter. This includes “advising the client in writing of the desirability of seeking… the advice of independent legal counsel” and giving the client “informed consent, in a writing signed by the client.” See Rule 1.8(a)(2) and (3) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. “Informed consent” is a term of art and it is defined in Rule 1.0(e).

Must your client actually get advice from another lawyer? No. The client just has to be advised in writing that it is a good idea to do so. If you are really doing a good job for your client and have truly earned the additional fee, there is no reason to fear that independent counsel will inadvertently interfere with your relationship with your client.

What if the new deal is not more “advantageous” to the lawyer? My advice is to follow 1.8(a) anyway. The practice of law is unpredictable. Cases that are certain to go to trial often settle on the courthouse steps. Difficult transactions can turn out to be simpler than anticipated. When the unexpected happens, it is difficult to look backwards and assess whether a new fee was more “advantageous” to the lawyer. If you follow 1.8(a) before the unexpected happens, you will not have to quibble about who got the better deal.

Unfortunately, if you care about your clients and your reputation, there are many ways to have sleepless nights while engaging in the practice of law. Avoiding the surprises and pitfalls of 1.8(a) is one way to avoid a few of those sleepless nights.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT