道德意见351

与客户分担法律费用

在特定情况下, 以下询问所考虑的支付给客户的款项并不违反规则5.4(a)禁止与非靠谱的滚球平台分担法律费用.

适用的规则

• 规则1.5 (a)(费用)
• 规则1.8(d)(利益冲突:具体规则)
• 规则1.15(b)(物业保管)
• 规则5.4(a)(靠谱的滚球平台的专业独立性)

调查

The 法律道德 Committee (“Committee”) has been asked whether two proposed 付款s by lawyers to their clients violate the fee-sharing prohibition of 规则5.D .第4(a)条.C. 《靠谱的足球滚球平台》(“D.C. 规则”).

场景一:  原告 and Lawyer A have a contingent fee agreement under which Lawyer is to receive one-third of any recovery.¹ 原告获得90美元赔偿,被告达成和解, 但被告坚持和解协议指定60美元,000靠谱的滚球平台费和30美元,作为补偿性损害赔偿. (The 原告’s claim arises under a “fee-shifting” statute that provides for attorney fees.)如她与原告的协议所述, 靠谱的滚球平台A只希望保留30美元,000美元作为靠谱的滚球平台费(三分之一)，另外30美元分配,(指定的“靠谱的滚球平台费”). 原告, 因此, 最后会得到60美元,90美元中的000美元,结算款, as contemplated by the contingent fee agreement made by 原告 and Lawyer A at the beginning of the engagement.

场景二: Pro bono Lawyer B receives attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute and wants to give the awarded fees to his client (“Client”), 谁是个人. Lawyer B has not made an advance commitment to pay Client the attorney fee or any other sum.

讨论

“靠谱的滚球平台或者靠谱的滚球平台事务所不得与非靠谱的滚球平台分担法律费用.” D.C. 规则5.4(a). One of the five exceptions to this prohibition is relevant to, but not dispositive of, 场景二:

(五)靠谱的滚球平台可以分担靠谱的滚球平台费, 无论是由仲裁庭裁决的还是在解决问题时接受的, 与一家非营利性组织合作, 保留, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter and that qualifies under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The prohibition is intended “to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment.注释[1]D.C. 规则5.4; 协议 对ABA模型规则的评论[1.4; Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers § 10, cmt. b(2000)(“重述”). Other authorities have spoken of the need to ensure that the lawyer will control the litigation, 对非靠谱的滚球平台中介招揽的威慑, 保护客户免受不合理的高额费用. 埃蒙斯，威廉姆斯，米尔斯 & 水蛭v. 加州州立 酒吧， 6 Cal. 应用程序. 3d 565, 573- 74,86 Cal. Rptr. 367, 372 (Ct. 应用程序. 1970); ABA Formal Op. 87-355 (1987); ABA Informal Op. 86-1519 (1986).

A Restatement comment on the prohibition focuses on the situation where the nonlawyer is 题为 to share the lawyer’s fees—a situation that does not obtain in either scenario set out above:

一个人 题为 to share a lawyer’s fees is likely to attempt to influence the lawyer’s activities so as to maximize those fees. 这可能导致法律服务不足. The Section should be construed so as to prevent nonlawyer control over lawyers’ services, not to implement other goals such as preventing new and useful ways of providing legal services or making sure that nonlawyers do not profit indirectly from legal services in circumstances and under arrangements presenting no significant risk of harm to clients or third persons.

重述§10,cmt. B(强调添加). 此外，本委员会建议不要过分宽泛地解读规则5.4(a), D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台公会法律操守课. 233 (1993), and the Virginia 酒吧’s ethics committee has said that “application of 规则5.4(a) must move beyond a literal application of language of the provision to include also consideration of the foundational purpose for that provision.” Va. 法律伦理课. 1783 (2003); 见埃蒙斯，威廉姆斯，米尔斯 & 水蛭， 6 Cal. 应用程序. 3d在575,86州. Rptr. 在373(专注于规则的“政策目标”).

大多数联邦收费转移法规定靠谱的滚球平台费奖励归客户所有, 而不是靠谱的滚球平台. 中部各州、东南和西南地区养老基金. 中央供电公司., 76 F.3d 114, 116(第7卷. 伊斯特布鲁克，J.); 看,e.g.，埃文斯v. 杰夫D., 475 U.S. 《1976年民权靠谱的滚球平台费用奖励法》，第717,730(1986)条.S.C. § 1988); 贝v. 米切尔, 495 U.S. 82,87(1990)(同).² 然而，一些联邦收费转移法规设想向靠谱的滚球平台提供奖励， e.g.罗德里格斯v. 泰勒, 569 F.2d 1231, 1245(第3卷. 1977年)(就业年龄歧视法)，一些州的法律也有同样的规定， e.g.弗兰纳里v. 普伦蒂斯, 28 P.3d 860,862 (Cal. (加州公平就业和住房法).³ 当然，给予客户的奖励不涉及规则5.4(a). 参见Central States, 76 F.3d at 116(法定费用是客户的财产), their contractual allocation between client and lawyer does not raise a fee-splitting issue).

We do not think that either proposed 付款 would constitute a prohibited sharing of legal fees. 在情形一中，规则5所指的“费用”.4(a)为原告与靠谱的滚球平台a事先约定的金额. 它不是和解协议中指定的“靠谱的滚球平台费”.” This is so even if the applicable fee-shifting statute assigns ownership of such funds to the lawyer. The fact of the advance agreement ensures that the proposed 付款 would not interfere with the lawyer’s independence of judgment or contravene the other rationales for the prohibition that are noted above. 事实上, a靠谱的滚球平台没有给原告60美元,90美元中的000美元,和解金额将违反或有费用协议, 看到 贝, 495 U.S. 82 (lawyer and client may agree to a fee that exceeds the amount ultimately awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988); Va. 法律伦理课. 1783 (2003) (sustaining 付款 to client of portion of “fee” received from adverse party that exceeds fee contractually agreed upon between lawyer and client), 可能构成违反规则1的不当扣留客户资金.15(b), 见In re Haar, 667 A.2d 1350 (D.C. 1995), 考虑到这60美元,000 represents two-thirds of the settlement amount—might constitute an unreasonable fee in violation of 规则1.5(a).

场景二, we assume that the fee award to which the inquiry refers is the property of Lawyer B rather than Client. 否则，根据规则5，大概就没有问题了.4(a). 参见Central States, 76 F.3d在116; 特纳v. 空军部长, 944 F.2d 804, 808(第11章. 1991) (court’s award of statutory attorney fees to client does not violate prohibition on 靠谱的滚球平台的 与客户分摊费用). 也, we understand that there has been no advance commitment by Lawyer B to pay Client an amount equal to Lawyer B’s fee or, 就此而言, 任何数量. 因此，我们认为提议的付款不是费用的分摊，而是费用的分摊 通融的 付款.⁴ 见财政部雇员工会诉. U.S. 财政部部长, 656 F.2d 848, 853-54 (D.C. 圆形的. 1981) (noting that lawyers are not prohibited from donating their fees to charity or to their employers); 约旦v. 美国司法部部长, 691 F.2d 514, 516 n. 14 (D.C. 圆形的. 1982)(相同).

最后，这两种情况都不涉及规则1.8(d)禁止预付或保证财政援助. 这是因为在这两种情况下都没有迹象表明靠谱的滚球平台作出了承诺, 更不用说制造或担保了, 在诉讼未决期间支付的任何此类款项.

This Committee’s charter limits it to addressing whether the proposed 付款s violate the D.C. 规则. D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台公会法律道德通讯. R. A-1, C-4. We 协议ingly do not address such issues as the tax consequences of the proposed 付款s.

结论

相应的, 在这些调查提出的具体情况下, neither proposed 付款 by a lawyer to the client would violate the fee-sharing prohibition of D.C. 规则5.4(a).

通过日期:2009年11月

1. Scenario One offers no explanation for Defendant’s proposed allocation of the settlement amount. 我们对被告提出的60美元的指定是否适当不发表意见,和解金额的000美元作为“靠谱的滚球平台费”和30美元,作为“补偿性损害赔偿”,” or the propriety of any acquiescence by 原告 or Lawyer A in that designation.
2. The Supreme Court soon will consider whether Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fee awards belong to the lawyer or the client. 比较Ratliff v. 阿特鲁，华氏540度.3d 800(第8章. 2008) (EAJA奖授予靠谱的滚球平台，而不是客户)，当然. 批准，174升. Ed. 2d 631, 2009 U.S. Lexis 5148,78 u.S.L.W. 3169 (No. 08 - 1322)(9月. 30, 2009)，以及Marre v. 美国，117 F.三维297,304(第五卷. 1997)(同)，与斯蒂芬斯v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131(第4期. 2009年)(EAJA奖授予客户)，以及Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732(第11章. 2008)(相同). 法院对拉特利夫案的裁决不应影响本意见的结论. If EAJA fees are the property of the client, there presumably is no issue under 规则5.4(a). 如果裁决是靠谱的滚球平台的财产, this opinion presumably will apply in respect of EAJA awards in the same way it applies to awards under other fee-shifting statutes.
3. Flannery indicates that its rule can be varied by “an enforceable agreement to the contrary” between lawyer and client. 弗兰纳里，28页.3d在862度.
4. 考虑到规则5中明确的例外.4(a)(5)款项予若干慈善组织, 虽然, 我们认为提议的付款是规则5所禁止的.4(a)靠谱的滚球平台B与客户已达成协议, 一个人, 或B靠谱的滚球平台承诺, 提前. 这是因为有限表达异常通常意味着其他, 类似的潜在例外是不允许的. 相关的法律准则是 表述的唯一性是排他性的 (i.e.(一种事物的表达意味着对其他事物的排斥).