WSBA 1991

Can a lawyer take a contingent fee to appeal a divorce when the only issue is the division of community property?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that, on the narrow facts (the dissolution already secured and the appeal not involving a property settlement in lieu of support), RPC 1.5(d) would not prohibit handling the appeal on a contingent fee basis.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, 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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The lawyer wished to enter into a contingent fee agreement for the appeal of a dissolution matter where the only issue on appeal related to the division of community property. Based on the narrow facts presented, which the committee understood to include that the dissolution had been secured and the appeal from the Superior Court judgment did not involve a property settlement in lieu of support, the committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.5(d) would not prohibit a lawyer from handling this narrow appeal on a contingent fee basis.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a divorce-related appeal be handled on a contingent fee?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, on the narrow facts presented, yes; the committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.5(d) would not prohibit a contingent fee for an appeal limited to dividing community property.

Q: What facts made the difference?

A: That the dissolution had already been secured and that the appeal did not involve a property settlement in lieu of support; the committee tied its conclusion expressly to those facts.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.5(d) restricted contingent fees in domestic relations matters, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 1.5(d). The committee read the restriction not to reach a post-dissolution appeal confined to dividing community property, where no property settlement in lieu of support was at issue.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.5(d) (contingent fees in domestic relations matters)
Washington RPC 1.5(d)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=473

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

[The lawyer wished to enter into a contingent fee agreement for the appeal of a dissolution matter where the only issue on appeal related to division of community property.] Based upon the narrow facts presented by your inquiry, which the Committee understood to include the fact that in this matter the dissolution had been secured, and the appeal from the Superior Court judgment does not involve a property settlement in lieu of support, that RPC 1.5(d) would not prohibit a lawyer from handling this narrow appeal on a contingent fee basis.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1991 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.