What may a California lawyer do for a missing client who already authorized settlement of claims within a defined range, and how must the lawyer handle settlement proceeds and fees?

State Bar of California COPRAC Formal Opinion 2002-160: Pre-Authorized Settlement Authority for a Missing Client

Short answer: The opinion concludes that even where a client has expressly pre-authorized an attorney to settle claims at or above a specified percentage and to endorse settlement checks, the attorney must still apply competence, the duty to communicate, undivided loyalty, and trust-account requirements; the attorney may not accept any offer outside the express authorization (including a lower offer to beat a statute of limitations), may not file suit when the client has prohibited it, and must deposit settlement proceeds in the client trust account and promptly withdraw fees as they become fixed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002, before the State Bar of California's adoption of the November 1, 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion interprets former Rules 3-110, 3-500, 3-510, 3-700, 4-100, and 4-200, together with Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) and 6104. Current Rules 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping), 1.16 (withdrawal), and 1.5 (fees) now address these issues; the analysis below is rooted in the framework as it stood in 2002. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule reference.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the State Bar of California's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

The hypothetical: Attorney A is hired to collect outstanding medical claims under a 25 percent contingency fee complying with Business and Professions Code section 6147. The client expressly authorizes A in writing to accept settlement offers of two-thirds or more of any claim, to receive the proceeds, to endorse the client's name on settlement checks (via an acknowledged power of attorney), and to pay herself fees from those proceeds. The client instructs A not to file suit on any claim without further authorization. The client then disappears. Two offers arrive: Attorney B offers two-thirds on several claims; Attorney C offers one-half on others.

Must A accept B's two-thirds offer? The committee said no, A is not required to accept any particular offer simply because it falls within the authorized range. Drawing on its 1989-111 opinion and Blanton v. Womancare (1985), the committee observed that without express authorization an attorney cannot bind a client to a settlement, and even when an offer is within the authorization, terms that vary (installments, non-cash consideration, non-standard releases, other conditions) may take the offer outside it. Even where the offer is fully within authorization, former Rule 3-110 (competence) and former Rule 3-500 and section 6068(m) (communication of significant developments) impose continuing duties. The committee identified the lawyer's discretion to negotiate higher, accept promptly, or weigh whether to accept as duties the lawyer must exercise without letting her own fee interest control. Because the client cannot be reached, the lawyer must consider whether to use the methods discussed in 1989-111 (private investigator, skip-tracing, public records, certified mail with return receipt, telephone contact with relatives or colleagues, internet searches) to locate the client. If after reasonable efforts the client remains missing and the lawyer cannot fulfill her duties, withdrawal under former Rule 3-700(A)(2) is the available course, taken with care to avoid foreseeable prejudice. If a statute of limitations is about to expire on a claim with a settlement offer at or above the authorized level, the lawyer may have less latitude to negotiate and may need to accept rather than risk withdrawal of the offer.

May A accept C's one-half offer to preserve some recovery? The committee said no. The cited cases (Silver v. State Bar (1974), Sampson v. State Bar (1974), Alvarado Community Hospital (1985)) demonstrated that the attorney cannot accept settlement at variance with the client's authorization. The committee added that the attorney is not authorized to determine what is in the client's best interests from a substantive standpoint, because doing so absent client direction encourages debtors to lower offers as the limitations period draws near. Could A instead file a complaint to preserve the claim? The committee said no: filing suit without authorization risks violation of Business and Professions Code section 6104 (corruptly or willfully filing without authority), particularly because the client expressly prohibited litigation. Footnote 7 distinguished merely drafting a complaint for possible later filing, which does not constitute "appearing."

Application of settlement proceeds to fees: a client can expressly authorize ministerial acts including endorsing the client's name to settlement checks (Palomo v. State Bar (1984); Matter of Lazarus (Review Dept. 1991)). The committee concluded that within the narrow circumstances of a missing client with pre-given authority to perform ministerial acts, the attorney's fee interest becomes "fixed" under former Rule 4-100(A)(2) upon deposit in the trust account. The proceeds must go into the client trust account, and the lawyer must promptly withdraw the contingency-fee portion. Rule 4-100 record-keeping, identification, and notice duties continue, and the lawyer should follow 1989-111's procedures to locate the missing client. The committee assumed the 25 percent fee was enforceable under former Rule 4-200's "illegal or unconscionable" balancing.

Common questions

Q: If a missing client gave the attorney advance authority to settle claims at two-thirds or more, must the attorney accept every offer in that range?

A: Per the opinion, no. Former Rule 3-110 (competence) requires the attorney to exercise judgment about whether to negotiate higher or accept, and former Rule 3-500 and Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) require communication of significant developments that might bear on the client's authorization. The attorney must also avoid letting her interest in being paid drive the decision. The committee added a caution about statute-of-limitations situations, where the lawyer may have less room to negotiate.

Q: May the attorney accept an offer below the authorized range to save something for the missing client?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee read Silver, Sampson, and Alvarado as confirming that any settlement outside the express authority is impermissible. The attorney is not authorized to make substantive decisions for the client; absent client direction, the claim is lost.

Q: May the attorney instead file suit to preserve the claim?

A: Per the opinion, no, where the client has expressly prohibited litigation. Filing suit without authority risks violation of Business and Professions Code section 6104. Footnote 7 distinguished mere preparation of a complaint for possible filing if the client is found in time, which does not constitute "appearing."

Q: What steps should the attorney take to locate a missing client?

A: Per the opinion, those described in California State Bar Formal Opinion 1989-111: private investigator or skip-tracing service, public records search, registered or certified mail with return receipt or address correction requested, and telephone contact with relatives or colleagues. The committee added internet resources. The attorney "should not weigh the value of the client's case or the attorney's desire to withdraw from employment against the costs" of a reasonably diligent search.

Q: How does the attorney handle settlement proceeds when the client is missing?

A: Per the opinion, proceeds go into the client trust account under former Rule 4-100. The committee concluded that, within the narrow facts presented (express advance authority including endorsement), the attorney's interest in the contingency fee becomes "fixed" under former Rule 4-100(A)(2) upon deposit; the lawyer must promptly withdraw the fee. Record-keeping, identification, and notice duties continue, and the lawyer must apply the same search procedures to attempt notification.

Q: Can the attorney withdraw if reasonable efforts to locate the client fail?

A: Per the opinion, withdrawal under former Rule 3-700(A)(2) is available, but only if the attorney has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client. The committee added that the duty to avoid prejudice makes it unlikely the attorney could withdraw rather than accept an offer that complies with the client's original authorization, though the conclusion depends on all circumstances.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former California Rules 3-110 (competence), 3-500 (keeping client informed), 3-510 (communicating settlement offers), 3-700 (withdrawal), 4-100 (client trust accounts), and 4-200 (fees), together with Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) (communication duty), 6104 (unauthorized filing of suit), 6147 (contingency fee contract requirements), and 6149 (fee agreement as confidential). Functionally these correspond, in current California numbering, to Rules 1.2 (scope), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping), and 1.16 (withdrawal).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former, in effect at time of opinion):

• Former California Rule 3-110 (competence)
• Former California Rule 3-500 (significant developments)
• Former California Rule 3-510 (settlement offer communication)
• Former California Rule 3-700, particularly 3-700(A)(2) and 3-700(B)(2)
• Former California Rule 4-100, particularly 4-100(A)(2)
• Former California Rule 4-200 (fees)

Statutes:

• California Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m), 6104, 6147, 6149

Cases:

• Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, specific authorization required for settlement
• Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 476, attorney must be specifically authorized
• Bambic v. State Bar (1985) 40 Cal.3d 314, settlement without consent
• Sampson v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 70, unauthorized settlement
• Bodisco v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 495, settlement discipline
• Silver v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 134, settlement outside authority
• In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, disregarding client settlement instructions
• Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1, fiduciary duty
• Zador Corp. v. Kwan (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1285, undivided loyalty
• Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, lawyer fee-negotiation conflicts
• In the Matter of Shinn (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, filing suit without consent under section 6104
• In the Matter of Taylor (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 563, filing complaint without client discussion
• In the Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 907, scope of section 6104
• In the Matter of Snyder (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 593, overruled by Lais
• Palomo v. State Bar (1984) 36 Cal.3d 785, express authorization to endorse settlement check
• Matter of Lazarus (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. Bar Ct. Rptr. 387, express authorization to sign client's name

Other opinions cited:

• California State Bar Formal Opinion 1989-111: locating missing clients
• California State Bar Formal Opinion 1984-83: fidelity in attorney-client relationship
• California State Bar Formal Opinion 1983-72: contingency-fee fidelity
• California State Bar Formal Opinion 1975-36: abandoned client trust funds

See also

• CA COPRAC Op. 2001-157: Retention and destruction of former client files
• CA COPRAC Op. 2002-158: Physically separate firm within a public defender's office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/2002-160_97-0001-PAW.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT
FORMAL OPINION NO. 2002-160

ISSUES:
1. What ethical constraints govern an attorney whose client has conferred upon her authority to settle, without instituting litigation, claims of the client for specific percentages of the amounts claimed, when the client has disappeared?
2. What ethical constraints govern the attorney's right to collect legal fees from settlement proceeds when communication with the client is not possible?

DIGEST:
1. An attorney who has not been specifically authorized by a client to settle a claim has no implied or apparent authority to bind a client to any settlement. If the client has authorized the attorney to settle specific claims without instituting litigation, to receive the settlement proceeds, and to take a percentage of the recovery in payment of her fees, the attorney still has an ethical obligation to represent the client competently and to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the client. Depending on the circumstances, the attorney may have an obligation to make reasonable efforts to locate the client and communicate with the client before proceeding with the settlement. If the settlement offer falls outside the attorney's authorization, the attorney does not have a duty to file an action to avoid the running of the statute of limitations.
2. If the settlement is permitted by the terms of the client's authorization, if the fee agreement is enforceable, and if the client's authorization to the attorney includes endorsing the client's name on checks paid in settlement of claims, then the proceeds must be placed in the attorney's client trust account and attorney's fees promptly withdrawn from the account.

AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED: Rules 3-110, 3-500, 3-510, 3-700, 4-100, and 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivision (m) and 6104.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

An attorney ("Attorney A") is retained by a client ("Client") to collect outstanding medical claims. Attorney A's written retainer agreement with Client complies with the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6147 and provides for Attorney A to receive as full payment for her services a contingency fee of 25 percent of each claim collected. Client authorizes Attorney A in writing to accept on Client's behalf settlement offers of two-thirds or more of the amount sought in any claim, to receive the resulting settlement proceeds, to endorse Client's name to the settlement check, and to pay herself from such proceeds the agreed contingency fees for her legal services. Client also instructs Attorney A not to institute litigation on any claim without further specific authorization from Client. To avoid delay in effecting settlement on behalf of Client, Attorney A's check endorsement authority is contained in an acknowledged power of attorney from Client.

After retaining Attorney A, Client disappears. Attorney A then receives two offers of settlement of Client's claims: Attorney B offers to settle several claims for two-thirds of their face amount; and Attorney C offers to settle another group of Client's claims for one-half of their face amount.

DISCUSSION

The facts presented raise three questions:
1) Must Attorney A accept Attorney B's two-thirds offer on behalf of Client?
2) May Attorney A accept Attorney C's one-half offer on behalf of Client?
3) May Attorney A apply the proceeds from any settlement to her fees?

I. Must Attorney A Accept Attorney B's Two-thirds Offer on Behalf of Client?

In State Bar Formal Opinion Number 1989-111, this Committee addressed some of the ethical ramifications of representing clients who cannot be located. In that opinion, we pointed out that under agency law, an attorney has no authority to enter into settlements without the client's express consent. "[W]ithout the express consent of a client, an attorney cannot enter into a settlement agreement, endorse a client's name on a check, or dismiss a cause of action. It is clear the attorney is severely limited in the substantive acts the attorney may take on behalf of a client when the client cannot be located." (Cal. State Bar Formal Opn. No. 1989-111, at p. 1.)

The Committee is now asked to opine on how the disappearance of a client, who previously has expressly conferred settlement authority on an attorney, may affect the attorney's ethical obligations when settlement offers have been made.

Although a client may specifically authorize the attorney to settle and compromise a claim, the attorney must bear in mind that she may not accept any proposed settlement which contains substantive terms at variance with the authority conferred on her by the client. (Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 404; Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 476, 480.) Attorneys have been disciplined for settling a client's case without the client's knowledge or consent. (Bambic v. State Bar (1985) 40 Cal.3d 314; Sampson v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 70; Bodisco v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 495.) Hence, even if a settlement offer comes within an amount previously authorized by the client, installment terms, non-cash consideration, non-standard terms in a release, or other unanticipated conditions may render the settlement offer beyond the attorney's authority.

Moreover, even where a client's original authorization for settlement permits the attorney to accept every offer to settle a claim at or above the authorized level and the terms of the offer do not vary from those contained in the client's authorization, that authorization does not relieve the attorney from the obligations to act competently and not to prejudice the client. Even where there is no question about the attorney's authority to accept a settlement offer, the attorney's ethical obligations to the client require more of the attorney than merely accepting any settlement within the scope of the client's authorization.

Rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California provides that an attorney "shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence." Under rule 3-110(B), "competence" means "to apply the 1) diligence, 2) learning and skill, and 3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service." Therefore, Attorney A should use her best judgment to determine whether she should try to obtain more than a two-thirds settlement, or whether she should simply accept the offer without further attempts at negotiation, because rejecting the offer, or delaying acceptance, might result in the offer being withdrawn entirely. Trying to negotiate a higher settlement might benefit Client beyond any increased recovery. Accepting without negotiation every offer that is at or above two-thirds of the claim might establish a reputation for Client among debtors of never negotiating and prejudice Client's subsequent attempts to settle claims. The situation would be different, however, if a statute of limitations were soon to expire. Under these circumstances, Attorney A, with no authority to commence litigation, would not be in a position to try to negotiate a higher recovery for fear of the debtor withdrawing the offer entirely. (Cf. In the Matter of Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, 43.)

In addition to her duty of competence under rule 3-110, Attorney A also has a duty under rule 3-500 and section 6068, subdivision (m) to inform Client of significant developments relating to the representation. This means that Attorney A ordinarily must consider whether she should advise Client of changes in the law, business developments of which she becomes aware, information about the settlement practices of a defendant, or other information about the strength or collectability of a claim that might affect Client's authorization to Attorney A.

Finally, attorneys and clients have a fiduciary relationship "of the very highest character." (Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) This fiduciary relationship means the lawyer has a duty of undivided loyalty to his or her client. "Perhaps the most fundamental quality of the attorney-client relationship is the absolute and complete fidelity owed by the attorney to his or her client." (Cal. State Bar Formal Opn. No. 1984-83, at p. 2.) Thus, in all situations where Attorney A has discretion to accept or not accept settlement offers on behalf of Client, her desire to be paid from the settlement proceeds must not influence the exercise of that discretion.

State Bar Formal Opinion Number 1989-111 states that under rule 3-700, an attorney may withdraw if the client "renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out the employment effectively" and that absence of the client may be a sufficient basis to withdraw. In a case where it reasonably appears to the attorney that she cannot carry out her instructions and fulfill her ethical obligations because of the client's disappearance, the attorney would have an obligation to try to find the client or to withdraw in compliance with rule 3-700. Although there is no definitive standard governing efforts to locate missing clients, the attorney should consider the procedures discussed in State Bar Formal Opinion Number 1989-111, including retention of a private investigator or skip-tracing service, search of public records, use of registered or certified mail with return receipt or address correction requested, and telephone contact with the missing client's relatives or colleagues. In addition, the attorney might utilize Internet resources in seeking a missing client. Further, in attempting to locate the missing client, the "attorney should not weigh the value of the client's case or the attorney's desire to withdraw from employment against the costs" of conducting a reasonably diligent search for the client.

If the circumstances require Attorney A to bring additional information to Client's attention so that Client can consider giving additional or different instructions to Attorney A, and if Attorney A cannot locate Client after reasonable efforts within the time available, then Attorney A may withdraw from her representation of Client only in compliance with rule 3-700. Rule 3-700(A)(2) permits an attorney to withdraw from employment only after she "has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client . . . ." Although Attorney A's duty to avoid such prejudice to Client's rights makes it unlikely that Attorney A could withdraw instead of accepting a settlement offer that complies with Client's original authorization, that decision still would depend on all the existing circumstances.

Under our facts, Client has authorized Attorney A to settle claims at two-thirds or more of their face amount, but she has not required Attorney A to accept any offer at the two-thirds or more level. Nevertheless, even if the instructions were mandatory rather than permissive, this would not alter the fact the Attorney A is compelled to comply with the competence and disclosure requirements of rules 3-110 and 3-500 and section 6068, subdivision (m). If, for example, Attorney A were to obtain information suggesting that the two-thirds level might be lower than is in Client's best interest, in the ordinary situation she would seek to bring that information to Client's attention. Here, even though Client is missing, Attorney A should also seek to bring that information to Client's attention to the extent that attempting to do so does not create other potential problems, such as might arise if the statute of limitations were about to run on a claim for which a two-thirds or greater offer has been received.

II. May Attorney A Accept Attorney C's One-half Offer on Behalf of Client?

Under our facts, Attorney C has offered Attorney A only one-half of the face amount in a proposed settlement, less than the minimum of two-thirds authorized by Client. In light of the principles discussed above, Attorney A cannot accept any settlement offer at variance with her authority from Client. (Silver v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 134, 144; Sampson v. State Bar, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 82; Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Court, supra, 173 Cal. App. 3d at p. 480.)

Nevertheless, a problem could arise if the statute of limitations were drawing near. Because of Client's instructions not to file suit, rejecting the one-half offer would result in the loss of the claim altogether. Under these circumstances, it might appear that the duty of competence would require Attorney A to accept the one-half offer to save some recovery for Client. In our opinion, however, Attorney A would have no such duty. First, the client has not given Attorney A authority to accept a one-half offer. Second, the cases cited in the preceding paragraph demonstrate that Attorney A is not authorized to determine independently what is in Client's best interests from a substantive as opposed to a procedural standpoint. Attorney A cannot know all of the objective and subjective circumstances and considerations that govern Client's substantive decisions, and any decisions outside of Client's authorization therefore must be left to Client. If, for example, it were to become known that Client is accepting all settlement offers as the end of the limitations period draws near, other debtors might be encouraged to lower their offers, possibly even below one-half of the claim.

Another issue is whether the duty of competence would allow Attorney A to reject the one-half offer, but file a complaint to preserve Client's claim. In our opinion, that would not be a proper course of action for Attorney A. Although lawyers generally have authority to make tactical decisions during litigation, for example, calling a particular witness, they do not, merely by virtue of being retained by a client, have authority to file suit. (Blanton v. Womancare Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d 396.) Filing a lawsuit without authorization violates section 6104, which provides that "[c]orruptly or wilfully and without authority appearing as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension." (See, e.g., In the Matter of Shinn (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr. 96, 104-105; In the Matter of Taylor (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. St. Bar Ct. Rptr. 563, 575.) Further, unlike the cases cited where the court found a violation of section 6104 even though the clients had not expressly prohibited the lawyers from filing suit, Client has expressly instructed Attorney A not to file a suit. Moreover, filing suit might be detrimental to Client and thus constitute a violation of Attorney A's duty of competence. For example, Client might have had reasons relating to finances, reputation, or other matters for instructing Attorney A not to file suit. Preserving the claim is only one of the considerations.

III. May Attorney A Apply the Proceeds from Any Settlement to Her Fees?

A client can authorize an attorney to perform those ministerial acts necessary to conclude a settlement. (Palomo v. State Bar (1984) 36 Cal.3d 785, 794; Matter of Lazarus (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. Bar Ct. Rptr. 387, 396-97.) Here, the power of attorney Client executed expressly authorized Attorney A to endorse Client's name to the settlement checks. If a proposed settlement is in accord with Attorney A's authorization and the fee agreement giving lawyer 25 percent of each claim collected is enforceable, then she may endorse and deposit the settlement check.

In collecting and accounting for the proceeds, Attorney A is governed by rule 4-100, which provides that an attorney must deposit in one or more client trust accounts all funds received or held for the benefit of a client. Rule 4-100(A)(2) goes on to require that any portion of that deposit that belongs to the attorney "must be withdrawn at the earliest reasonable time after the [attorney's] interest . . . becomes fixed." This Committee is aware of no case that has construed the meaning of "fixed." We conclude, however, that within in the very narrow circumstances of this situation – where the client has disappeared after having given the attorney the authority to perform the ministerial acts necessary to complete a settlement, including endorsing the client's name on the settlement check – the attorney's interest becomes fixed upon deposit.

Attorney A accordingly must deposit into trust the proceeds of the settlement – which represent both Client's recovery on the claim and Attorney A's fee by virtue of the contingency fee arrangement – and promptly withdraw that portion of the settlement funds representing her fee. Attorney A must otherwise comply with rule 4-100 concerning the identification and preservation of client funds and client notification. In complying with the client notification requirements, the attorney should follow the procedures outlined above and in State Bar Formal Opinion Number 1989-111 for locating missing clients. (See also Cal. State Bar Formal Opn. No. 1975-36.)

This opinion is issued by the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of the State Bar of California. It is advisory only. It is not binding upon the courts, the State Bar of California, its Board of Governors, any persons or tribunals charged with regulatory responsibilities, or any member of the State Bar.