skip navigation

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

New Jersey Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - Rule 1.5

The Court adopts ABA Model Rule 1.5 with certain revisions, most of which were recommendations of the Debevoise Committee. The communication to the client regarding the basis or rate of fee as required in paragraph (b) must be in writing (rather than "preferably in writing"). See R. 1:21-7A. The limitation on the permissibility of contingent fee arrangements contained in paragraph (c) is broadened to provide for prohibitions "by law or by these rules." As to guidelines for contingent fees, see R. 1:21-7, as amended January 16, 1984. The limitation on division of fees as set forth in paragraph (e) is qualified by "except as otherwise provided by the Court Rules." See R. 1:39.

The eight enumerated factors in paragraph (a) to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee correspond nearly verbatim to those previously contained in DR 2-106. As to contingent fees, the proscription continues against their use in criminal or domestic relations matters. For the fee dispute resolution structure, see R. 1:20A. See also RPC 5.4.