Don't Be 'That Lawyer'—Fix Your Fee Contract Today!
Professionalism is its own reward but, like any job done well, highly professional lawyers tend to have the greatest financial success in private practice.
November 19, 2019 at 01:57 PM
5 minute read
Do you want to be "that lawyer" who sues clients for fees, or "that lawyer" who works hard but walks away from unpaid fees to avoid suing clients? Amend your future fee contracts today and avoid the misery of being either kind of "that lawyer."
Here are two useful clauses to include in your fee contracts. First, an arbitration clause in your fee contact is commended to you by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the State Bar of Georgia. Second, a client complaint clause in your fee contract is enforceable under an important Court of Appeals decision. We also guarantee you will be better looking. Keep reading to find out how!
First, include a Georgia Bar Fee Arbitration clause in your fee contract. The Supreme Court of Georgia's "Specific Aspirational Ideals" suggests such a clause: "As to clients, I will aspire … [t]o fair and equitable fee agreements. As a professional, I should … [r]esolve all fee disputes through the arbitration methods provided by the State Bar of Georgia." Clients and lawyers can contractually submit to mandatory binding fee arbitration by the Bar's Committee on Arbitration in the fee contract. To be arbitrated, the disputed fee must be over $750 worth of legal services performed in Georgia by a Georgia lawyer, must be within the previous two years, not already fixed in amount by law nor court order, and not already the subject of pending litigation. The full text of Georgia Bar Rule 6-204 can be found online at https://www.gabar.org/handbook/#handbook/rule549. The Georgia Bar Fee Arbitration staff fields questions with alacrity at 404-527-8750.
What should your fee arbitration clause include? The fee arbitration clause must state all fee disputes shall be resolved solely, exclusively, and finally through the arbitration methods provided by the State Bar of Georgia, under Georgia Bar Rule 6-204. Rule 6-204 requires your fee contract arbitration provision follow three simple but strict rules.
|- The fee contract's fee arbitration clause must be in a separate paragraph.
- The fee arbitration language clause font must be at least as large as the language in the remainder of the contract, preferably larger.
- The fee arbitration clause should include adjacent lines on the contract for both the lawyer's and the client's initials and must be initialed by both.
These three rules ensure that the client and lawyer mutually consent to the fee arbitration clause. If your client fails to pay your fee, or if your client disagrees with your fee, the Committee on the Arbitration of Attorney Fee Disputes will render an enforceable decision, at the request of the client or the lawyer.
Second, include a client complaint clause in your fee contract. Your case at arbitration will be much stronger if you follow the guidance of Loveless v. Sun Steel, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 247, 424 S.E. 2d 887 (1992). In Loveless, a client complaint clause was included in the fee contract, stating "any complaint regarding the legal services provided or the amount charged therefor must be definitive, in writing and received by [lawyer] within 30 days of billing or it is waived." Id. at 248, 424 S.E.2d at 889. This client complaint clause creates an estoppel barring evidence of client complaints that are not definite, written, and timely. This clause won summary judgment for the lawyer in that litigated fee dispute because no definite, timely, written complaint was received by the lawyer from the client. Georgia Bar arbitrations follow Georgia law, so under Loveless, this clause may be argued at arbitration to create the same contractual evidentiary estoppel as in litigation. ("During arbitration proceedings, the general rules of contract construction apply." Sweatt v. Int'l Dev. Corp., 242 Ga. App. 753, 755, 531 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2000); "Contracts are to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of the place where they were made." Convergys Corp. v. Keener, 276 Ga. 808, 811, 582 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2003)). This clause is more helpful if your practice sends monthly or periodic billings, but it should still apply upon final billing that is not met with a timely, definite, written complaint.
Professionalism is its own reward but, like any job done well, highly professional lawyers tend to have the greatest financial success in private practice. The most professional lawyers, who read and follow the Supreme Court's advice, are generally happier and have the best client relations. Professional lawyers are also better-looking, because clients, colleagues, judges, and even adversaries, are happy to see them. If this article has been helpful to you, please take half an hour to read and contemplate the other useful pointers written to you by the Supreme Court of Georgia, called "Specific Aspirational Ideals" at https://www.gabar.org/aboutthebar/lawrelatedorganizations/cjcp/lawyers-creed.cfm. The best, brightest lawyers and judges among us wrote these Ideals to tell you what works to be happy, successful and better looking. (The authors thank Rita Payne and Tom Humphries of the Georgia Bar Committee on Arbitration for their helpful refinements.)
Christopher C. Edwards is the chief judge of Superior Court of the Griffin Judicial Circuit and now serves on the Board of Governors and on the Board of the General Practice and Trial Section of the State Bar of Georgia.
Kyle Harris Timmons is a graduate of the 2017 class of Mercer Law and currently serves as Judge Edwards' staff attorney in the Griffin Judicial Circuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readHusch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
9 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250