Is a lawyer required to charge the fees listed in a bar association minimum-fee schedule?

Plain-English summary

The committee answered no to whether a lawyer must charge fees set by the Bar Association fee schedule. The opinion's stated purpose was to formally delete KBA E-17 and KBA E-27, the committee's earlier opinions tied to a bar fee schedule.

The only authority the committee cited was Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), the Supreme Court decision holding that a bar association's minimum-fee schedule violated federal antitrust law. The deletion of the prior opinions follows from that decision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Must a lawyer follow a bar association's fee schedule?

A: No. The committee deleted its earlier fee-schedule opinions (KBA E-17 and E-27), consistent with Goldfarb, which struck down minimum-fee schedules under antitrust law.

Q: What earlier opinions did this one withdraw?

A: KBA E-17 and KBA E-27, which the committee formally deleted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion withdraws the committee's prior fee-schedule guidance in light of Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, leaving the reasonableness of fees to be judged on the merits rather than by a mandatory schedule. The modern analog is Model Rule 1.5 (a lawyer's fee must be reasonable, judged by the listed factors rather than a fixed schedule).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-106 (reasonable fees); modern analog Model Rule 1.5

Cases:

• Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S. Ct. 2004 (1975), bar minimum-fee schedule violates antitrust law

Other opinions cited:

• KBA E-17, E-27 (formally deleted by this opinion)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-216: Interest, Advances, and Litigation Costs
• KBA Ethics Op. E-224: Advertising a General Practice

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-202.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-202
Issued: January 1979

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), before relying on this opinion.

Question:

Must a lawyer charge fees set by the Bar Association fee schedule?

Answer:

No.

References:

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004 (1975)
Opinion

The purpose of this opinion is to formally delete the Opinions KBA E-17 and KBA E-27.
____
Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.