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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - 1.5

Reasonableness of Fee

[1] Division (a) requires that lawyers charge fees that are reasonable under the circumstances. The factors specified in divisions (a)(1) through (8) are not exclusive. Nor will each factor be relevant in each instance.

Nature and Scope of Representation; Basis or Rate of Fee and Expenses

[2] The detail and specificity of the communication required by division (b) will depend on the nature of the client-lawyer relationship, the work to be performed, and the basis of the rate or fee. A writing that confirms the nature and scope of the client-lawyer relationship and the fees to be charged is the preferred means of communicating this information to the client and can clarify the relationship and reduce the possibility of a misunderstanding. When the lawyer has regularly represented a client, they ordinarily will have evolved an understanding concerning the basis or rate of the fee and the expenses for which the client will be responsible. In a new client-lawyer relationship, however, an understanding as to fees and expenses must be established promptly. Unless the situation involves a regularly represented client, the lawyer should furnish the client with at least a simple memorandum or copy of the lawyer’s customary fee arrangements that states the general nature of the legal services to be provided, the basis, rate or total amount of the fee, and whether and to what extent the client will be responsible for any costs, expenses, or disbursements in the course of the representation. So long as the client agrees in advance, a lawyer may seek reimbursement for the reasonable cost of services performed in-house, such as copying.

[3] Contingent fees, like any other fees, are subject to the reasonableness standard of division (a) of this rule. In determining whether a particular contingent fee is reasonable, or whether it is reasonable to charge any form of contingent fee, a lawyer must consider the factors that are relevant under the circumstances. Applicable law may impose limitations on contingent fees, such as a ceiling on the percentage allowable, or may require a lawyer to offer clients an alternative basis for the fee. Applicable law also may apply to situations other than a contingent fee, for example, government regulations regarding fees in certain tax matters.

Terms of Payment

[4] A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is obliged to return any unearned portion. See Rule 1.16(e). A lawyer may accept property in payment for services, such as an ownership interest in an enterprise, providing this does not involve acquisition of a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation contrary to Rule 1.8 (i). However, a fee paid in property instead of money may be subject to the requirements of Rule 1.8(a) because such fees often have the essential qualities of a business transaction with the client.

[5] An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to curtail services for the client or perform them in a way contrary to the client’s interest. For example, a lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby services are to be provided only up to a stated amount when it is foreseeable that more extensive services probably will be required, unless the situation is adequately explained to the client. Otherwise, the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of a proceeding or transaction. However, it is proper to define the extent of services in light of the client’s ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures.

[5A] If all funds held by the lawyer are not disbursed at the time the closing statement required by division (c)(2) is prepared, the lawyer’s obligation with regard to those funds is governed by Rule 1.15.

Prohibited Contingent Fees

[6] Division (d) prohibits a lawyer from charging a contingent fee in a domestic relations matter when payment is contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of spousal or child support or property settlement to be obtained. This provision does not preclude a contract for a contingent fee for legal representation in connection with the recovery of post-judgment balances due under support or other financial orders because such contracts do not implicate the same policy concerns.


[6A] Advance fee payments are of at least four types. The “true” or “classic” retainer is a fee paid in advance solely to ensure the lawyer’s availability to represent the client and precludes the lawyer from taking adverse representation. What is often called a retainer is in fact an advance payment to ensure that fees are paid when they are subsequently earned, on either a flat fee or hourly fee basis. A flat fee is a fee of a set amount for performance of agreed work, which may or may not be paid in advance but is not deemed earned until the work is performed. An earned upon receipt fee is a flat fee paid in advance that is deemed earned upon payment regardless of the amount of future work performed. When a fee is earned affects whether it must be placed in the attorney’s trust account, see Rule 1.15, and may have significance under other laws such as tax and bankruptcy. The reasonableness requirement and the application of the factors in division (a) may mean that a client is entitled to a refund of an advance fee payment even though it has been denominated “nonrefundable,” “earned upon receipt,” or in similar terms that imply the client would never receive a refund. So that a client is not misled by the use of such terms, division (d)(3) requires certain minimum disclosures that must be included in the written fee agreement. This does not mean the client will always be entitled to a refund upon early termination of the representation [e.g., factor (a)(2) might justify the entire fee], nor does it determine how any refund should be calculated (e.g., hours worked times a reasonable hourly rate, quantum meruit, percentage of the work completed, etc.), but merely requires that the client be advised of the possibility of a refund based upon application of the factors set forth in division (a). In order to be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of the fee in the event of early termination of the representation, it is advisable that lawyers maintain contemporaneous time records for any representation undertaken on a flat fee basis.

Division of Fee

[7] A division of fee is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. A division of fee facilitates association of more than one lawyer in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as well, and most often is used when the fee is contingent and the division is between a referring lawyer and a trial lawyer. Division (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee either on the basis of the proportion of services they render or if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation as a whole. Within a reasonable time after disclosure of the identity of each lawyer, the client must give written approval that the fee will be divided and that the division of fees is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. Except where court approval of the fee division is obtained, closing statements must be in a writing signed by the client and each lawyer and must otherwise comply with division (c) of this rule. Joint responsibility for the representation entails financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership. A lawyer should only refer a matter to a lawyer whom the referring lawyer reasonably believes is competent to handle the matter. See Rules 1.1 and 1.17.

[8] Division (e) does not prohibit or regulate division of fees to be received in the future for work done when lawyers were previously associated in a law firm.

Disputes over Fees

[9] If a procedure has been established for resolution of fee disputes between a client and a lawyer, such as an arbitration or mediation procedure established by a local bar association, the Ohio State Bar Association, or the Supreme Court of Ohio, the lawyer must comply with the procedure when it is mandatory, and, even when it is voluntary, the lawyer should conscientiously consider submitting to it. Law may prescribe a procedure for determining a lawyer’s fee, for example, in representation of an executor or administrator, a class or a person entitled to a reasonable fee as part of the measure of damages. The lawyer entitled to such a fee and a lawyer representing another party concerned with the fee should comply with the prescribed procedure.

[10] A procedure has been established for resolution of fee disputes between lawyers who are sharing a fee pursuant to division (e) of this rule. This involves use of an arbitration or mediation procedure established by a local bar association or the Ohio State Bar Association. The lawyer must comply with the procedure. A dispute between lawyers who are splitting a fee shall not delay disbursement to the client. See Rule 1.15.

Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Rule 1.5 replaces DR 2-106 and DR 2-107; makes provisions of EC 2-18 and EC 2-19 mandatory, as opposed to aspirational, with substantive modifications; and makes the provisions of R.C. 4705.15 mandatory, with technical modifications.

Rule 1.5(a) adopts the language contained in DR 2-106(A) and (B), which prohibits illegal or clearly excessive fees and establishes standards for determining the reasonableness of fees. Eliminated from Rule 1.5(a) is language regarding expenses.

Rule 1.5(b) expands on EC 2-18 by mandating that the nature and scope of the representation and the arrangements for fees and expenses shall promptly be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, to avoid potential disputes, unless the situation involves a regularly represented client who will be represented on the same basis as in the other matters for which the lawyer is regularly engaged.

Rule 1.5(c)(1) also expands on EC 2-18 and R.C. 4705.15(B) by requiring that all contingent fee agreements shall be reduced to a writing signed by the client and the lawyer. Rule 1.5(c)(2) directs that a closing statement shall be prepared and signed by both the lawyer and the client in matters involving contingent fees. It closely parallels the current R.C. 4705.15(C).

Rule 1.5(d) prohibits the use of a contingent fee arrangement when the contingency is securing a divorce, spousal support, or property settlement in lieu of support. It finds its basis in EC 2-19, which provides that “Because of the human relationships involved and the unique character of the proceedings, contingent fee arrangements in domestic relations cases are rarely justified.” Rule 1.5(d)(2) prohibits the use of contingent fee arrangements in criminal cases and parallels DR 2-106(C).

Rule 1.5(d)(3) prohibits fee arrangements denominated as “earned upon receipt,” “nonrefundable,” or other similar terms that imply the client may never be entitled to a refund, unless the client is advised in writing that if the lawyer does not complete the representation for any reason, the client may be entitled to a refund so the client is not misled by such terms. The rationale for this rule is contained in Comment [6A].

Rule 1.5(e) deals with the division of fees among lawyers who are not in the same firm. Rule 1.5(e)(1) restates the provisions of DR 2-107(A)(1), with the additional requirement that in the event the division of fees is on the basis of joint responsibility, each lawyer must be available for consultation with the client. Rule 1.5(e)(2) clarifies DR 2-107(A)(2) and Advisory Opinion 2003-3 of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline regarding the matters that must be disclosed in writing to the client.

Rule 1.5(e)(3) is a new provision directing that the closing statement contemplated by Rule 1.5(c)(2) must be signed by the client and all lawyers who are not in the same firm who will share in the fees, except where the fee division is court-approved. Rule 1.5(e)(4) is a restatement of DR 2-107(A)(3) regarding the requirement that the total fee must be reasonable.

Rule 1.5(f) is a restatement of DR 2-107(B) requiring mandatory mediation or arbitration regarding disputes between lawyers sharing a fee under this rule.

Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Model Rule 1.5 is amended to conform to Disciplinary Rules and ensure a better understanding of the relationship between the client and the lawyers representing the client, thereby reducing the likelihood of future disputes. Also, the comments are modified to bring them into conformity with the proposed changes to Model Rule 1.5 and clarify certain aspects of fees for the benefit of the bench, bar, and the public.

Although ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) directs that a lawyer shall not charge “unreasonable” fees or expenses, the terminology in DR 2-106 (A) prohibiting “illegal or clearly excessive” fees is more encompassing and better suited to use in Ohio. Charging an “illegal fee” differs from charging an “unreasonable fee” and, accordingly, the existing Ohio language is retained.

Model Rule 1.5(c), while dealing with contingent fees, is expanded and clarified. The closing statement provisions of the Model Rule are expanded to bring them in line with existing R.C. 4705.15(C). Additionally, the Model Rule is divided into two parts, the first dealing with the lawyer’s obligations at the commencement of the relationship and the second dealing with the lawyer’s obligations at the time a fee is earned.

The provisions of Model Rule 1.5(d) are modified to add division (d)(3) and Comment [6A] in light of the number of disciplinary cases involving “retainers.”

Model Rule 1.5(e) and Comment [7] dealing with division of fees are modified to bring both the requirements of the rule and the commentary into line with existing practice in Ohio.