Attorney-client Fee Arrangements - Regulation and Review

• NCJ Number: 78288
• Author(s): R H Aronson
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 167 pages
• Corporate Author: Federal Judicial Ctr
• Sale Source: Federal Judicial Ctr; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Report to the Federal Judicial Center.

Annotation

The regulation and review of attorney-client fee arrangements are examined, with emphasis on the valuation of legal services, fee splitting among attorneys, contingent fee arrangements, and the funding of public interest litigation through the awarding of attorneys' fees.

Abstract

Although rules and judicial decisions vary for each of each of these four areas, several common themes exist. Many rules have been handed down from an earlier time when the legal profession and society were both less complex. A large number of statutes and regulations have since created a vast new array of rights and remedies. Professionals in general and lawyers in particular have been asked to justify rules and practices accepted without question just 10 or 20 years ago, yet the regulation of attorneys' fees has only recently been reevaluated. A more clearly articulated valuation system is needed before the validity of specific fee arrangements can be determined. Such recent developments as increased advertising and solicitation, formation of legal clinics and group legal services plans, and lay participation on State bar grievance committees and boards of governors will significantly affect fee setting and subsequent review. The legal profession should review its fee guidelines before the legislature and judiciary further restrict the free determination of compensation between attorneys and their clients. Both judicial and legislative involvement in fee setting have drawbacks. Committees of the legislature, the judiciary, and the legal profession should study alternative methods for valuing legal services, various fee systems' economics, and the effect of potential guidelines. The accuracy of assumptions concerning what is best for the public should also be examined through collection of empirical data which will help answer questions underlying disagreements over the valuation and delivery of legal services. Footnotes and a list of Federal fee award statutes are provided. (Author summary modified)