Ezel / Ethics Opinions / OCBAR

How did Orange County's 1999 opinion address a client-only settlement check during a fee dispute?

Short answer The opinion says the lawyer cannot deposit a check payable only to the client without permission; it discusses keeping the indivisible check separate while offering fee arbitration.
Bar
OCBAR
Issued
1999
Source
View official page

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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 an official web page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (official page)

Plain-English summary

The opinion assumes a written hourly fee agreement with a lien on settlement proceeds. The client altered settlement documents so the check was issued to the client alone, then refused the lawyer's proposed deduction of unpaid fees. The check nevertheless reached the lawyer.

The committee reads former California Rule 4-100 as allowing disputed funds to be retained until the dispute is resolved. But because this particular check names only the client, it says the lawyer may not deposit it into trust without the client's permission. The check also cannot be divided physically into a disputed and undisputed portion.

The opinion describes holding the whole check separately and offering the client fee arbitration under Business and Professions Code section 6201. If the client does not elect arbitration, the committee describes sending the entire check to the client with a statement of the lawyer's claimed amount, then bringing a legal action to resolve the claim.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, before California's 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's official rules page says the new rules became effective November 1, 2018. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: May the lawyer deposit the client-only check into a trust account?

A: The opinion says not without the client's permission because the check is payable only to the client.

Q: Why does the committee discuss holding the whole check?

A: The check is indivisible, so the claimed fee portion cannot be separated from the client's portion while the dispute remains unresolved.

Q: What does the opinion describe if arbitration is not elected?

A: It describes returning the whole check with a letter stating the claimed fee, followed by an action to resolve the parties' rights.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies former California Rule 4-100, refers to ABA Model Rule 1.15 as advisory authority, and discusses California Business and Professions Code section 6201 on fee arbitration.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Former California Rule 4-100
  • ABA Model Rule 1.15

Statutes:

  • California Business and Professions Code section 6201

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1999. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace