Ezel / Ethics Opinions / COBAR
COBAR June 23, 1961

Can a lawyer sue a client or use a collection agency to recover an agreed, unpaid legal fee?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that, although lawsuits and controversies over fees should be avoided, a lawyer may ethically recover an agreed, unpaid fee either by suing the client in the lawyer's own name or by assigning the claim to a collection agency, but should resort to those methods only when circumstances require it.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1961. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1961
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Opinion 20 (adopted June 23, 1961; addendum issued 1995) addressed a lawyer who performed non-litigation services for an agreed fee, delivered the work product, and then could not get the client to pay despite repeated promises, with no apparent dispute about the quality of the work or the amount of the fee. The question was whether the lawyer could assign the bill to a collection agency or sue the client in the lawyer's own name.

The Committee began with Canon 14, which provides that controversies and lawsuits with clients over compensation are to be avoided so far as compatible with the lawyer's self-respect and right to reasonable compensation, and should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, imposition, or fraud. It treated this as a strong limitation but recognized that Canon 14 also confirms the lawyer's right to be reasonably compensated and to sue when necessary. On the facts, no settlement fund or papers remained against which the lawyer could assert a statutory lien, but the Committee concluded that not using the lien statute did not forfeit other legitimate collection methods. Because no dispute about the amount existed and only the method of collection was at issue, the Committee concluded that if the lawyer honestly and reasonably concluded the fee could not be collected without resorting to one of the two methods, neither assigning the claim to a collection agency nor suing in the lawyer's own name would be unethical, and that the lawyer should reach that conclusion before embarking on either course.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1961 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics, before the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct took effect on January 1, 1993, and before Colorado's 2008 revisions to those rules. A 1995 addendum directed lawyers to Rule 1.5 (fees) and Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information), and to Opinion 82 and the Colorado attorney-lien statutes. The lien statutes the opinion cites (C.R.S. 1953) have been recodified and the confidentiality rules have changed. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer sue a client to collect an unpaid fee?

A: Yes, under this opinion, where the fee was agreed and undisputed and the lawyer has honestly concluded that suit is necessary. The Committee read Canon 14 to permit suit as a last resort to obtain reasonable compensation.

Q: Can the lawyer instead send the unpaid bill to a collection agency?

A: Yes, under this opinion. The Committee concluded that assigning the claim to a collection agency, like suing in the lawyer's own name, is not unethical where the lawyer has reasonably concluded the fee cannot otherwise be collected.

Q: Does the lawyer have to try an attorney's lien first?

A: No. The opinion concluded that failing to use the statutory lien did not cause the lawyer to lose the right to use other legitimate collection methods, noting that on these facts no fund or papers remained against which a lien could be asserted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (avoiding fee controversies while preserving the right to reasonable compensation), with reference to the Colorado attorney-lien statutes then codified at C.R.S. 1953. The 1995 addendum restates the analysis under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rule 1.5 (Model Rule 1.5, fees) and Rule 1.6 (Model Rule 1.6, confidentiality of information).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Colo. RPC 1.5 / Model Rule 1.5 (fees; per the 1995 addendum)
  • Colo. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information; per the 1995 addendum)

Statutes:

  • C.R.S. 1953, sections 12-1-10 and 12-1-11 (attorney's lien on funds and papers, as cited in the opinion)
  • C.R.S. sections 12-5-119 and 12-5-120 (attorney's lien, per the 1995 addendum)

Other opinions cited:

  • CBA Formal Opinion 82 (per the 1995 addendum)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1961 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.