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.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?