There are certain jurisdictions, your non-refundable language of preservation is considered unethical and contrary to public policy. In the Matter of Cooperman (1994) the court found that non-refundable detentions limit the “absolute” right of clients to dismiss their lawyer without penalty. (Matter of Cooperman (1994) 611 NYS2d 465, 468-469, 633 NE2d 1069, 1072. See also West Virginia State Bar Form.Opn. 99-03 (1999), in which it says in part: “Avoid, in the type of agreement in which a particular work product is provided, the notion of “non-refundable storage persons.” All royalties must be earned”] In examining whether a true archivist resists an analysis of scruples, it should be kept in mind that an agreement can only be annulled on the basis of the facts that existed at the time of the creation of the contract [Section 1670.5 of the Civil Code; Rule 4-200 (B)] “The decisive moment in determining whether a contract is unacceptable is when it is concluded by both parties, not whether it is unacceptable in light of the events that followed.” [American Software Inc. v. Ali (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1391]. For the explanation, if authentic storages are the only ones where fees are earned after receipt, then your package contract falls into “immediately refundable” part of Rule 3-700 (D) (2), and you must return all fees that have not been earned. (There is much more to discuss here with regard to advance fees, and what to do with controversial money, etc., but it will be for another topic.) The 2003 amendment to E.R. 1.5 probably concerns the first point, requiring a legal fee to inform the client that the client is “not refundable” despite the fees collected, that he can discharge the lawyer at any time and that he is “entitled to a full or partial restitution of the royalty on the basis of the value of the representation.
. . . 28 Even though the rules allow for lump sum agreements, I would like you to think about some things the next time you are packaged with flat fee agreements. Mr. Hirschfeld was eventually excluded because of a large number of ethical violations that went well beyond the issue of non-refundable prepayments. With respect to the issue of royalties, the Supreme Court found that non-refundable conservation persons do not constitute “offences per se in the E.R. 1.5.” 9 She did, however, cite the “classic” or “general” example of “a tax paid to ensure the availability of a lawyer.” The court also recognized that a flat fee may be reasonable for a particular service, but noted its involvement in In Re Swartz11, in which it was found that, regardless of the terms of a solicitor`s fee agreement, the amount actually calculated by counsel must be reasonable after the fact.12 “[I] at the end of counsel`s services seems a tax that seemed reasonable if it was agreed. if it has been agreed, is appropriate.12 , has become excessive, the lawyer must not appear on the contract; it has to reduce costs. 13 This alone circumstance should prove that your package contract is not a “true conservative” and, if it is not a true retainer, your plan is by definition refundable. It is precisely this interpretation that the State Bar Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct gave, in its opinion 99-02.15, to the National Committee of Professional Conduct Counsel, which re-examined the issue of non-refundable agreements in advance following the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in In re Cooperman16, which prohibits them against the new York public order.