You are on page 1of 1

Bertini NCT PR ESSAY 1

1) The contingency agreement between Jones and New Dawn is in not compliance
with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Responsibility
The NC Rules of Professional Responsibility allow for lawyers to make contingency
fee arrangements with clients as long as the fees are reasonable in light of the
amount of work done on the case and the complexity and difficulty of the litigation.
Fee agreements must be agreed to by the client with informed consent confirmed in
writing.
Here, the fee agreement between Jones and New Dawn is not reasonable in
light of the complexity of the litigation because the vast majority of the claim has
been admitted to by City Center. Futher the remaining defense re based on the
Uniform Commercial Code and not obscure or complicated regulations so settling
the validity of those claims will not be difficult. Since Jones contingency agreement
awards her almost half of the recovery her fee is unreasonable in light of the small
amount of work that would go into this case.
Here, the facts do not show that New Dawn signed a writing confirming the
fee agreement. Since there are no facts to show the agreement was in writing it is
not appropriate under the North Carolina Rules of Professional Ethics.
In conclusion the fee agreement between Jones and New Dawn is not in
compliance with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Ethics.
2) Jones agreement with Plankton was not in compliance with the North Carolina
Rules of Professional Responsibility.
The North Carolina Rules of Professional Responsibility allow lawyers who are not
members of a firm to work together and share fees only with a written agreement
and informed consent from the client confirmed in writing. The fees must be split in
reasonable relation to the work done by the attorneys.
Here, Jones and Plankton are not members of the same firm because the
facts do not indicate they are members of a firm.
Here, the agreement between Jones and Plankton was not in writing because
the facts show that the agreement is an oral agreement.
Here, the client did not give informed consent confirmed in writing to the fee
splitting arrangement because the facts show that the client was not informed of
the agreement until after the case had settled. Although this is before Jones actually
paid any of the fee to Plankton it is also after Jones and Plankton made the
agreement and worked on the case together.
In conclusion the agreement between Jones and Plankton is not in compliance
with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Responsibility.