Opinion ID: 2636626
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The parties' writings described how to determine BPK's fee.

Text: The clients argue that the modified fee agreement is invalid under Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(c), which states: [a] fee agreement that is in whole or part contingent shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal. [16] The parties modified their written fee agreement over a series of letters and e-mails; the clients concede that the modified fee agreement met the writing requirement. But the clients argue the modified fee agreement fails to comply with Rule 1.5(c) because there was no evidence in writing that [the clients] agreed to return to the 33% contingent contract, or that [the clients] agreed that BPK could engage in `further, substantial litigation' thus triggering the reversion. We agree it would have been preferable to acknowledge in writing the point at which the substantial litigation threshold had been reached, but the letters that BPK sent the clients after the fee agreement was modified and before settlement occurred communicated that BPK was investing significant effort in pursuit of the clients' legal claims and, by November 2006, made clear that BPK believed it was entitled to a thirty-three percent contingency fee. The clients neither objected to the thirty-three percent contingency fee until after a tentative settlement had been reached nor instructed BPK not to pursue their claims. And the record shows BPK had numerous phone calls and teleconferences with the clients, indicating the clients must have known BPK was engaging in substantial work. BPK did not leave the clients in the dark about the extent to which it was pursuing their claims or the fee it believed it was owed. Under the circumstances of this case, any failure to announce that the substantial litigation threshold had been reached did not prejudice the clients.