Opinion ID: 2642714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: in contracting with their clients,

Text: ATTORNEYS ARE BOUND BY HIGHER ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAN TYPICAL PARTIES TO A CONTRACT ¶100 I disagree with the lead opinion‘s analysis regarding the standard to be applied to attorneys entering into fee agreements. Supra ¶ 64. While I agree that the Dorsey letter incorporates the provisions of the Bendinger letter, the interest rate and collection provisions contained in the letters raise concerns about a lawyer‘s ethical role when drafting such engagement agreements, and I believe the issue should not be resolved on summary judgment. ¶101 Despite the lead opinion‘s assertion that ―nothing in [the Rules of Professional Conduct] prescribes a higher standard of clarity for attorney-client fee agreements than that imposed on regular contracts,‖ supra ¶ 68 n.14, the attorney-client relationship is not analogous to an ordinary contractual relationship. Indeed, the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules) contemplate higher ethical standards for attorneys when contracting with their clients than do typical laws of contract formation. For instance, we require that a contingent fee agreement ―be in a writing signed by the client‖ and that it ―state the method by which the fee is to be determined.‖ UTAH R. PROF‘L CONDUCT 1.5(c). Such formalities are not required in typical contract formation, even when such a contract is based on a contingent return. ¶102 Similarly, subject to certain limited exceptions, ―[a] lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client.‖ Id. 1.8(a). Again, there is no such prohibition on typical contracting parties, nor is there such a prohibition when lawyers are contracting with parties whom they do not represent. Finally, under the Rules, lawyers may not ―solicit any substantial gift from a client,‖ nor may they prepare instruments conveying substantial gifts unless they are related to the client. Id. 1.8(c). Such restrictions are simply inapplicable to nonlawyers. As stated by the California Court of Appeal, ―[t]he Rules of Professional Conduct are not only ethical standards to guide the conduct of members of the bar; but they also serve as an expression of public policy to protect the public.‖ Fields v. Ratfield, No. A132766, 2012 WL 5359775, at  (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 37 STROHM v. CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.