When could a Minnesota lawyer charge interest or late fees on unpaid attorney's fees?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. 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
The opinion started from Rule 1.5(a)'s requirement that a lawyer's fee be reasonable and the principle that an illegal fee is unreasonable. It concluded that, in Minnesota, assessing interest or late charges on attorney's fees was unreasonable, and a violation of Rule 1.5(a), if the rate of interest was usurious; if Minnesota law required the client to agree in writing to the interest charges and there was no such written agreement; or if federal truth-in-lending disclosures for consumer credit sales were required and had not been made.
The opinion stated it incorporated the Board's interpretation and prosecutorial position and was not intended to bind any trial court or other adjudicatory body in determining civil liability under truth-in-lending or usury laws. It then set discipline thresholds tied to the interest rate: a lawyer charging 6 percent or less without an advance written agreement would not be disciplined for failure to comply with truth-in-lending requirements; a lawyer charging 8 percent or less under a written client agreement would not be disciplined for such failures; and a lawyer charging more than 8 percent would be subject to discipline for failure to comply with any truth-in-lending requirements or disclosures.
Currency note
The Board flagged this opinion as Repealed effective October 25, 2002; it is retained here for historical research only.
This opinion was issued in 1993, before the Minnesota Supreme Court's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: When was charging interest on attorney's fees a rule violation?
A: The opinion treated it as unreasonable under Rule 1.5(a) if the rate was usurious, if Minnesota law required a written client agreement and there was none, or if required truth-in-lending disclosures were not made.
Q: What interest rate could a lawyer charge without discipline?
A: The opinion set safe harbors: 6 percent or less without an advance written agreement, and 8 percent or less under a written agreement, would not draw discipline for truth-in-lending failures.
Q: What happened above 8 percent?
A: The opinion stated a lawyer charging more than 8 percent annual interest would be subject to discipline for failure to comply with any truth-in-lending requirements or disclosures.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 1.5(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (the analog of Model Rule 1.5 on fees), reading the reasonableness requirement together with Minnesota usury law and federal truth-in-lending requirements. It was adopted in 1993 and repealed in 2002.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.5 (fees)
- Minnesota RPC 1.5(a) (reasonableness of fees)
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/lawyers-professional-responsibility-board-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-16_compressed.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
Repealed: October 25, 2002
OPINION NO. 16
INTEREST AND LATE CHARGES ON ATTORNEYS FEES
A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. See Rule 1.5(a), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. An
illegal fee is unreasonable. In Minnesota, the assessment of interest or late charges on attorney's fees is
unreasonable, and a violation of Rule 1.5(a), if: (1) the rate of interest is usurious; or (2) Minnesota law
requires that the client agree in writing to the imposition of the interest charges, and there is no such
written agreement; or (3) federal truth-in-lending disclosures for consumer credit sales are required and
have not been made.
The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board hereby issues this opinion which incorporates its
interpretation and prosecutorial position concerning interest or late charges on attorney's fees. This
opinion is not intended to bind or influence any trial court or other adjudicatory body in determining
civil liability under truth-in-lending or usury laws.
1. An attorney who charges a client interest at an annual rate of 6 percent or less on outstanding
attorney's fees, without obtaining advance written agreement from the client, will not be subject
to lawyer discipline for failure to comply with the truth-in-lending requirements or disclosures.
2. An attorney who charges a client interest at an annual rate of 8 percent or less, pursuant to a
written agreement with the client, will not be subject to lawyer discipline for failure to comply
with truth-in-lending requirements or disclosures.
3. An attorney who charges a client interest at an annual rate of more than 8 percent will be
subject to lawyer discipline for failure to comply with any truth-in-lending requirements or
disclosures.
Adopted: March 26, 1993.
Repealed: October 25, 2002.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 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.