Must a lawyer explain all the available fee arrangements to a client even if the lawyer would only take the case on one type?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Committee was asked whether the Canons of Ethics require an attorney to offer a prospective divorce client a choice between a flat fee and an hourly rate. Drawing on the principle it had set out in Opinion 74-3 in the personal-injury context, the opinion concluded that an attorney has an ethical obligation to advise a client fully and fairly as to all the various fee arrangements available for a particular matter, even though that lawyer would be willing to undertake the representation on only one of those arrangements.
The opinion concluded this general principle applies to divorce cases as well as personal-injury actions. It did not hold that the lawyer must agree to work under every arrangement, only that the lawyer must explain the available options to the client.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1976, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (it applies the former Code of Professional Responsibility) and before the 2009 revisions to those rules. The rules on fees and client communication have since been recodified. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific point mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Must a lawyer explain all fee options even if the lawyer only works one way?
A: The opinion concluded that a lawyer must advise the client fully and fairly about all the fee arrangements available for the matter, even if the lawyer would undertake the representation on only one of them.
Q: Does this apply to divorce cases?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded the principle, first stated for personal-injury cases in Opinion 74-3, applies to divorce cases as well.
Q: Does the lawyer have to agree to every fee arrangement?
A: No. The opinion required the lawyer to explain the available options, not to undertake the representation on an arrangement the lawyer is unwilling to use.
Background and rules framework
The opinion treated a lawyer's duty to explain fee options as a fee and client-communication question under the former Code of Professional Responsibility, the subjects now treated by Model Rule 1.5 (fees) and Model Rule 1.4 (communication). It applied the principle set out in Opinion 74-3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code; cf. Model Rules):
- Former Code fee and client-information provisions (cf. Model Rule 1.5; Model Rule 1.4)
Other opinions cited:
- Alaska Ethics Opinion 74-3 (origin of the duty to explain available fee arrangements)
See also
- Alaska Ethics Op. 79-1: Charging Interest on Unpaid Bills
- Alaska Ethics Op. 95-4: Charging Clients for Disbursements and Expenses
- Alaska Ethics Op. 87-1: Non-Refundable Fee Retainers
Source
- Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
- Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/76-5.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinion No. 76-5
Attorney Obligated to Explain Different Types of Fee Arrangements to
Clients Although Attorney May Only Take Cases Under One or More of the
Arrangements.
The Committee has been asked the following question:
Do the Canons of Ethics require an attorney to offer a prospective divorce
client a choice between a flat fee and an hourly rate?
It is the Committee's opinion, as set forth in the specialized context of
Opinion 74-3, that an attorney has an ethical obligation to advise a client fully
and fairly as to all the various fee arrangements available for a particular
matter, even though that lawyer, himself, would only be willing to undertake
the representation on one of those arrangements. This general principle is
applicable to divorce cases as well as personal injury actions.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on October 15, 1976.
G:\Ds\COMM\Ethics\Ethics Opinions for CDROM\1976\76-5.doc
1
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1976 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.