Can a lawyer charge earned fees to a client's credit card if the client authorized it in the engagement letter?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it is ethical to charge legal fees and costs to a client's credit card sixty days after billing the client, when the client has authorized such a charge in an engagement letter.

The committee answered yes, assuming that the fee has been earned, is reasonable, has not been contested, and that the fee agreement complies in other respects with RPC 1.5. The committee directed the inquirer to WSBA Formal Opinion 157 (1975), which considered the use of credit cards and adopted, in relevant part, ABA Opinion 338 (1974).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 RPC 1.5 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees), which requires a lawyer's fee to be reasonable; credit-card handling of advance fees and trust-account questions have been addressed in later guidance, so verify current rules before relying on this opinion.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer charge fees to a client's credit card?

A: The committee concluded yes, where the client authorized the charge in the engagement letter, assuming the fee has been earned, is reasonable, has not been contested, and the agreement otherwise complies with RPC 1.5.

Q: What conditions did the committee attach?

A: That the fee has been earned, is reasonable, has not been contested, and that the fee agreement complies in other respects with RPC 1.5.

Q: Is there older guidance on credit cards?

A: Yes. The committee pointed to WSBA Formal Opinion 157 (1975), which considered credit-card use and adopted, in relevant part, ABA Opinion 338 (1974).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.5 (fees), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5. The committee made the permissibility of a credit-card charge turn on client authorization in the engagement letter and on the fee being earned, reasonable, uncontested, and otherwise compliant with RPC 1.5, drawing on WSBA Formal Opinion 157 (1975) and ABA Opinion 338 (1974).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 157 (1975): use of credit cards.
• ABA Opinion 338 (1974): use of credit cards (adopted in relevant part by WSBA Formal Opinion 157).

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1812: Referral Fee After a Conflict
• WA Ethics Op. 1815: Contingent Fee in a Divorce Appeal
• WA Ethics Op. 1024: Contingent Fee for Collections

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1019

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1826
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.5; Formal Opinion 157; ABA Opinion 338
Subject: Charging legal fees and costs to client's credit card sixty days after billing as authorized

The Committee researched and reviewed your inquiry concerning whether it is ethical to charge legal fees and costs to a client's credit card sixty days after billing the client when the client has authorized such a charge in an engagement letter and determined the following:

Yes, assuming that the fee has been earned, is reasonable, has not been contested and that the fee agreement complies in other respects with RPC 1.5. The inquirer is directed to WSBA Formal Opinion 157 (1975) which considered the use of credit cards and adopted, in relevant part, ABA Opinion 338 (1974).