Also keep in mind that pricing agreements are interpreted from the perspective of a “reasonable customer” so that, while your understanding and intention to retain it is important, the warrant officer will interpret your contract from the perspective of a reasonable customer. 29 Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, E.R. 1.5, comment 7; See also Ariz. R. Sup.
Ct. 42; E.R. 1.16 (d), “At the end of the representation, a lawyer takes steps to the extent reasonably possible to protect the client`s interests, such as appropriate disclosure to the client. B, the granting of time for the employment of another legal advisor, the handing over of documents and property to which the client is entitled, and the reimbursement of advances of an unearned sum. (Added highlight.) There is a time and a place for engagement retainers. However, they are relatively rare and often misunderstood, even by the lawyers who accuse them. Lawyers must be prepared to overcome the impression that counsel`s employees compensate for doing nothing or that they are a premium paid on legal fees. In short, lawyers who do not understand engagement deductions should not incriminate them. Another reason why your lump sum agreement is always refundable is the fact that the case law has also taught us that if your retainer is related to a particular service, then it is not a real tidy at all. (Matter of Fonte (Rev.Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.
752, 757; In re C – P Auto Transport, Inc. (BC ED CA 1988) 94 BR 682, 686-687]) A classic or general retention agreement creates a current lawyer/client relationship and thus conflicts with the lawyer, 4 it is really earned if it is paid because the client obtains the rights for which he negotiated (the availability of counsel and the assurance that the lawyer will not represent an opposite party), and the lawyer has “deserved” the tax by agreeing to make it available to himself. If the client exercises his option to have the lawyer work on behalf of the client, the lawyer is paid separately for the services actually provided. At least in theory, marking a prepaid tax as non-refundable should not influence whether the client can be reimbursed if the lawyer does not act properly. Both E.R. 1.7 and Comment 7 expressly require that a lawyer in the fee agreement be written, which is now required in all obligations, states that even if the custodian “deserves to receive”, this statement is obviously only a summary of the operation of In re Swartz.30 This problem has been compounded by the increasing use of “non-refundable” pre-benefit contracts entered into by lawyers who accept partial “invoice” payments. That is, lawyers who agree to accept non-refundable advance fees for certain services provided by clients who cannot pay the full agreed fee if the lawyer is initially hired. Often, these lawyers encourage clients to make partial payments on a lay-a-way agreement.
These lawyers believe that partial payments are earned after receipt and therefore should not be paid into their trust accounts when no work has been done or is being performed, unless complete retention has been completed.