Can a D.C. lawyer accept cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, as payment for legal fees or in settlement of a client's claim?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2020. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 378 (published June 2020) concludes that the D.C. Rules contain no basis for treating cryptocurrency as a uniquely unethical form of payment. Because the IRS treats cryptocurrency as property rather than currency, and because Comment [4] to Rule 1.5 lets a lawyer accept property such as an ownership interest as payment, the Committee treats payment in cryptocurrency as more like payment in property than in cash. The threshold requirement is Rule 1.5(a): the fee must be reasonable. Nothing in the reasonableness standard prohibits accepting a volatile asset as payment.
The opinion draws a line based on timing. When a client receives a dollar-denominated bill for services already rendered and elects to pay the equivalent in cryptocurrency, the Committee concludes Rule 1.8(a) is not implicated, because the value is fixed and the exchange involves no special variables. But when the lawyer holds cryptocurrency as an advance fee, or the fee is calculated in cryptocurrency (for example, one Bitcoin per month), the parties enter a potentially adverse pecuniary relationship governed by Rule 1.8(a), because of uncertainty about the asset's future value. Rule 1.8(a) then requires that the terms be fair and reasonable, fully disclosed in writing, that the client have a reasonable opportunity to consult independent counsel, and that the client consent in writing. Drawing on D.C. Opinion 300 (acceptance of stock in lieu of fees), the Committee concludes fairness is judged at the time of the engagement, so later swings in value do not make a then-fair arrangement unethical.
The opinion then addresses safeguarding. Under Rule 1.15(a) and (e), advances of unearned fees are client property held until earned, and any unearned portion must be returned on termination, regardless of how the fee is funded. The Committee ties this to Rule 1.1 competence: a lawyer must understand and guard against the ways cryptocurrency can be stolen or lost, since blockchain transactions are unregulated, uninsured, anonymous, and irreversible, and private keys in "hot" or "cold" wallets are vulnerable to hacking, malware, or irretrievable loss.
In practice
Under the D.C. rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a lawyer asked to take cryptocurrency for fees should first confirm the fee is reasonable under Rule 1.5(a). The opinion concludes that a client paying the dollar equivalent of an existing bill for completed work does not, by itself, trigger Rule 1.8(a). But the opinion concludes that taking cryptocurrency as an advance fee, or pricing the engagement in cryptocurrency, does trigger Rule 1.8(a) because of the asset's volatility, so the lawyer would provide written disclosure of the terms (including how billing, valuation, exchange platform, transfer fees, and lien shortfalls are handled), give the client a chance to seek independent counsel, and obtain written consent, with fairness assessed as of the engagement date.
The opinion concludes that a lawyer holding a client's cryptocurrency, whether as an advance fee or in settlement, must treat unearned advances as client property under Rule 1.15 and return any unearned portion on termination, and must have the competence under Rule 1.1 to safeguard the asset against theft, breach, and loss of keys. Because the opinion predates later developments in this area, verify the current D.C. rules and any newer guidance before relying on specific requirements.
Common questions
Q: Can a D.C. lawyer accept Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency for legal fees?
A: The opinion concludes there is no per se prohibition, so long as the fee is reasonable under Rule 1.5(a); the Committee treats cryptocurrency payment as more like payment in property than in cash.
Q: Does accepting cryptocurrency trigger the business-transaction rule, Rule 1.8(a)?
A: The opinion concludes it depends. Paying the dollar equivalent of a bill for work already done does not trigger Rule 1.8(a), but holding cryptocurrency as an advance fee, or calculating fees in cryptocurrency, does, because of the volatility.
Q: If the cryptocurrency's value soars or crashes later, is the fee now unfair?
A: The opinion concludes that, for ethics purposes, fairness is judged at the time of the engagement, drawing on D.C. Opinion 300; later value changes beyond the lawyer's control do not make a then-fair arrangement an ethical violation.
Q: What does the lawyer have to do to safeguard a client's cryptocurrency?
A: The opinion concludes the lawyer must competently understand and guard against the ways cryptocurrency can be stolen or lost (Rule 1.1) and hold unearned advance fees as client property until earned, returning any unearned portion on termination (Rule 1.15).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets D.C. Rule 1.5(a) (fees must be reasonable), Rule 1.8(a) (business transactions with clients: fair terms, written disclosure, opportunity for independent counsel, written consent), Rule 1.15(a) and (e) (safekeeping client property; unearned advances held until earned), and Rule 1.1 (competence, including the benefits and risks of relevant technology). It builds on D.C. Opinion 300 (accepting an ownership interest in a client as advance fees) and adopts the analysis of the New York City Bar's opinion on cryptocurrency fee arrangements.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.5(a) / Model Rule 1.5 (fees must be reasonable)
- D.C. RPC 1.8(a) / Model Rule 1.8 (business transactions with a client)
- D.C. RPC 1.15(a), (e) / Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property; unearned advances)
- D.C. RPC 1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence, including technology)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Op. 300 (2000): accepting an ownership interest in a client as advance fees
- D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Op. 371: competence and use of technology (social media)
- N.Y.C. Bar Formal Op. 2019-5: requiring or accepting cryptocurrency for legal services
Other authority:
- Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers section 126 cmt. e (2000): fairness judged at the time of the transaction
See also
- NYC Bar Ethics Op. 2019-5: Cryptocurrency Fee Payments
- Ohio Ethics Op. 2022-007: Holding Cryptocurrency in Escrow
- Colorado Formal Op. 109: Taking an Ownership Stake in a Client
- DC Ethics Op. 389: Flat Fees, Subscription Fees, and Disbarment
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-378
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2020 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.