Ethics Opinions

Print opinion

Back to ethics opinions search

RPC 231

October 18, 1996

Editor's Note: This opinion was originally adopted as RPC 231 (Revised).

 

Collecting a Contingent Fee on the Gross Recovery and on the Medical Insurance Provider's Claim

 

Opinion rules that a lawyer may not collect a contingent fee on the reimbursement paid to the client's medical insurance provider in addition to a contingent fee on the gross recovery if the total fee received by the lawyer is clearly excessive.

 

Inquiry #1:

 

Attorney A's contingent fee agreement with Client for representation in a personal injury case will pay Attorney A a fee of one-third of the gross recovery from the defendant plus whatever contingent legal fee may be provided by law for recovering and paying the claim for reimbursement of an insurance carrier or medical insurance program that paid some or all of the client's medical expenses. Is it ethical for a lawyer to collect a contingent fee on the gross recovery and an additional contingent fee for recovering and paying the claim of the medical insurance carrier or program?

 

Opinion #1:

 

No opinion is expressed as to whether a legal fee for collecting a medical insurance provider's claim for reimbursement is permitted by law. If such a fee is permitted by law, the collection of this fee in addition to the collection of a contingent fee on the gross recovery may render the lawyer's total fee for the representation of the client "clearly excessive" in violation of Rule 2.6(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Whether the total fee is "clearly excessive" depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular representation. "Contingent fees, like all legal fees, must be reasonable." RPC 35. Further, a lawyer may not charge a clearly excessive fee even though the fee may be recovered from an opposing party. RPC 196

 

Rule 2.6(b) provides that "[a] fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence experienced in the area of law involved would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee." The rule then lists a number of factors to be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of a fee including the following:

 

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

 

 

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

 

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

 

 

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and

 

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

 

A lawyer may not know at the beginning of the representation whether collecting the additional fee will render the lawyer's total fee clearly excessive in violation of the rule. However, at the conclusion of the representation, the lawyer should examine the factors listed in Rule 2.6(b) to determine the reasonableness of the total fee. If the collection of the additional fee renders the total fee paid to the lawyer clearly excessive in light of these factors, the lawyer should reduce the fee paid by the client in an amount equivalent to the fee permitted by law for collecting and paying the claim of the medical insurance provider.

 

Inquiry #2:

 

At the beginning of the representation, should the lawyer disclose to the client the lawyer's intention to seek the fee from the medical insurance provider in addition to the contingent fee payable by the client on the gross amount of the recovery?

 

Opinion #2:

 

Yes, the fee arrangement should be fully explained to the client and the client should agree to the fee arrangement. See Rule 2.6 and comment.

 

Back to ethics opinions search

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
217 E. Edenton Street • PO Box 25908 • Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 • 919.828.4620
Copyright North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved.