Can a fee agreement say the lawyer is automatically relieved of representation and may withdraw if the client does not pay?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned proposed fee-agreement language stating that if the client did not pay fees or costs as agreed, the attorney would be relieved of any further obligation to represent the client or appear in court, and the client authorized the attorney to withdraw. The committee concluded that because the language contemplates withdrawal from a case in violation of RPC 1.15, 1.5, and 8.4, it does not comport with the letter, spirit, intent, and meaning of the Rules. The committee added that the material meaning of the court rules and substantive case law covering the issue is inconsistent with the proposed language.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.5 (fees) and 8.4 (misconduct), and, for then-numbered RPC 1.15 (declining or terminating representation, later renumbered RPC 1.16), ABA Model Rule 1.16.

Common questions

Q: Can a fee agreement automatically relieve the lawyer and authorize withdrawal if the client does not pay?

A: The committee concluded such language contemplates withdrawal in violation of RPC 1.15, 1.5, and 8.4 and does not comport with the rules.

Q: Why is the language a problem?

A: The committee tied the defect to the withdrawal rule (then RPC 1.15), the fee rule (RPC 1.5), and the misconduct rule (RPC 8.4), and noted court rules and case law are inconsistent with the proposed language.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied then-RPC 1.15 (declining or terminating representation, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16 and later renumbered RPC 1.16), RPC 1.5 (fees, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.4) to fee-agreement language purporting to authorize automatic withdrawal on nonpayment. The committee treated the language as contemplating an improper withdrawal and pointed to court rules and case law as further inconsistent with it.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5
• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); Washington RPC 1.15 (later renumbered RPC 1.16)
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct); Washington RPC 8.4

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1721: Stop-Work Clause for Unpaid Fees
• WA Ethics Op. 1301: Court-Ordered Continued Representation

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=820

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1751
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.5; 1.15; 8.4
Subject: Fee agreement permitting lawyer to withdraw if fees unpaid

[The inquiry concerned] the ethical implications of specific language in a proposed fee agreement, to wit:

"I further understand that, if applicable, the additional fee for a trial must be paid no later than the date the case is set for trial. If I do not pay the fees or costs as agreed, I understand that [the attorney] will be relieved of any further obligation to represent me or to appear in court on my behalf and, in that event, I authorize him to withdraw from my case."

It is the committee's opinion that because the proposed fee agreement language contemplates withdrawal from a case in violation of RPC 1.15, 1.5 and 8.4, it does not comport with the letter, spirit, intent and meaning of the Rules. In addition, the material meaning of the court rules and substantive case law that covers this issue, is inconsistent with your answer.