Ezel / Ethics Opinions / LACBA
LACBA January 31, 1963

Is it improper for a lawyer to collect past-due spousal or child support on a contingent-fee basis in California?

Short answer: The committee withdrew its earlier Opinion 263, which had called such a contingent-fee arrangement improper, concluding that the question turned on a doubtful determination of law that was outside the committee's function to decide.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1963. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current California Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1963
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 Not binding precedent.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

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

View original opinion

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

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1963 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current California Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

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