Could a Colorado lawyer charge a contingent fee to collect past-due or future child support or spousal maintenance?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 67 distinguished collecting arrears from obtaining future domestic-relations awards. A contingent fee for an undetermined divorce, property, or support award created tension between the lawyer's compensation and policies governing family relationships. By contrast, each overdue child-support or maintenance installment had already become a fixed judgment, so collecting the debt resembled an ordinary civil collection matter.

The Committee therefore permitted a reasonable contingent fee for past-due support, subject to Colorado's contingent-fee rules and judicial review of reasonableness. It prohibited contingent fees on future child support or maintenance.

The lawyer also had to provide full information about collection and fee alternatives, including public enforcement services, contempt proceedings, and possible court-awarded fees and costs. The opinion warned that assignments, bankruptcy law, and public-assistance reimbursement claims could separately affect the collection.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985 under the Colorado Code of Professional Responsibility and received a 1995 addendum identifying corresponding Rules of Professional Conduct. It predates Colorado's 2008 revisions. Later family-law statutes, fee rules, bankruptcy law, enforcement programs, and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current authority before relying on a contingent-fee arrangement.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer use a contingent fee to collect overdue child support?

A: Yes, under the opinion, if the fee was reasonable and complied with Colorado's contingent-fee requirements.

Q: Could the agreement cover future support payments?

A: No. The opinion expressly declined to approve contingent fees for future child support or future spousal maintenance.

Q: Why did arrears receive different treatment?

A: The opinion treated each overdue installment as a fixed judgment and the lawyer's work as collection of a preexisting liquidated obligation.

Q: What alternatives had to be discussed?

A: The opinion identified public enforcement offices, contempt proceedings, court-awarded fees and costs, and other fee or collection options.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was written under former contingent-fee and reasonableness provisions. Its 1995 addendum identified Colorado RPC 1.5 and former Rule 1.8(j) as the corresponding framework for reasonable contingent fees in civil matters.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Colo. RPC 1.5 (reasonable fees)
• Former Colo. RPC 1.8(j) (reasonable contingent fees in civil cases)

Statutes:

• 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A) (assignment and discharge issue identified by the opinion)

Cases:

• Wall v. Lindner, 410 P.2d 186 (Colo. 1966), contingent fees in domestic-relations matters
• Carey v. Carey, 486 P.2d 38 (Colo. App. 1971), support installments as fixed judgments
• Schaffer v. District Court, 470 P.2d 18 (Colo. 1970), accrued support obligations
• Brillhart v. Hudson, 455 P.2d 878 (Colo. 1969), review of contingent-fee reasonableness

Other opinions cited:

• Kentucky Ethics Opinion E-205 and ethics opinions from Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York County, Virginia, and West Virginia on support arrears

See also

• Kentucky Ethics Op. E-205: Contingent Fee for Back Support
• Alabama Ethics Op. 1991-05: Contingent Fee for Child-Support Arrears
• Arizona Ethics Op. 91-20: Contingent Child-Support Fee

Source

• Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
• Original PDF: Colorado Formal Ethics Opinion 67