Legal Opinion

In Re Mance

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 29, 2009No. 06-BG-890PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUIZ, Associate Judge:

This case presents us with the question whether a “flat fee” paid in advance for legal services is to be deemed an “advance[ ] of unearned fees” that is required to be treated as property of the client under Rule 1.15(d) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) determined that a flat fee paid in advance of services being rendered becomes the attorney’s property upon receipt, and, in the alternative, found that, even if the flat fee remains the client’s property under Rule 1.15(d), the client in this case consented to…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZuckermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  3. Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. AplandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1998
  4. In Re HallmarkDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. In Re ElginDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. In re MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. In Re KanuDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KhandpurCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-KauffmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. StinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API