Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a divorce lawyer use a contingent fee to collect spousal support arrearages already awarded by a court?

Short answer The committee said Rule 1.5(d)(1)'s domestic-relations contingent-fee ban did not apply to post-divorce collection of court-awarded spousal support arrearages. The arrangement remained subject to the conduct rule on fees.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
January 27, 1994
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
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

A lawyer who had represented a client in a divorce asked whether a contingent fee could be used to collect arrearages on spousal support already awarded by the court. North Dakota Rule 1.5(d)(1) barred a fee in a domestic-relations matter contingent on securing a divorce or on the amount of support or a property settlement.

The committee distinguished collection of support after the divorce and court award from obtaining the support award itself. It said the policy concerns behind the domestic-relations prohibition did not apply to a later collection proceeding after the divorce and support amount had been established. Subject to the rule on fees, the lawyer could enter a contingent-fee arrangement for collection of support already reduced to judgment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did Rule 1.5(d)(1) bar a contingent fee for post-divorce collection of already awarded support?

A: No. The committee said those collection proceedings were not the domestic-relations matters contemplated by that ban.

Q: Was the proposed fee exempt from all fee rules?

A: No. The committee expressly made its conclusion subject to the rule on fees.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets North Dakota Rule 1.5(d)(1) for post-divorce collection of support reduced to judgment.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.5(d)(1), contingent fees in domestic-relations matters.

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct 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