Is it improper for a lawyer to collect past-due spousal or child support on a contingent-fee basis in California?
LACBA Ethics Opinion 275: Withdrawal of Opinion 263 on Contingent Fees for Collecting Support
Short answer: The committee withdrew its earlier Opinion 263, which had concluded it was improper for an attorney to collect past-due support and maintenance on a contingent-fee basis, because the question turned on a determination of law that was in doubt and outside the committee's function to decide.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Los Angeles County Bar Association's view 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. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
In Opinion 263, issued July 9, 1959, the committee had stated that it was improper for an attorney to handle the collection of past-due obligations for support and maintenance ordered in a California divorce case on a contingent-fee basis. That opinion turned on whether, as a matter of California law, such a contract was valid.
The committee reconsidered the question. It concluded that because Opinion 263 rested on a determination of law, the answer to which was in doubt, and because passing on conclusions of law is not within the function of the committee, Opinion 263 was no longer the opinion of the committee. The committee withdrew Opinion 263 without expressing a view on the underlying legal question.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1963, before California adopted the former Rules of Professional Conduct (effective 1989) and long before the current rules that follow the ABA Model Rules format (effective November 1, 2018). It is a procedural withdrawal of an earlier opinion rather than a substantive holding on contingent fees, and the rules governing fee arrangements have since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Does Opinion 263 still represent the committee's view on contingent fees for collecting support?
A: No. Per Opinion 275, the committee withdrew Opinion 263 and it is no longer the committee's opinion.
Q: Why did the committee withdraw Opinion 263 instead of reaffirming or reversing it?
A: Per the opinion, because the question depended on a determination of California law that was in doubt, and deciding conclusions of law was not within the committee's function.
Background and rules framework
The opinion predates the Model Rules and the numbered California rules. The subject matter, contingent fees, maps to today's fee rule (Model Rule 1.5; California Rule 1.5). The opinion itself makes no substantive ruling; it withdraws Opinion 263 on the ground that the issue was a legal question outside the committee's role.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- LACBA Opinion 263 (withdrawn by this opinion)
See also
- LACBA Ethics Op. 458: Contingency Fee Contract and the Client's Knowledgeable Consent
- LACBA Ethics Op. 534: A Contingent Fee Lawyer's Duty to Quantify Its Fee Lien
Source
- Landing page: https://lacba.org/?pg=ethics-opinions
- Original PDF: https://lacba.org/docDownload/2011009