Resources

State of Illinois Illinois State Bar AssociationCHARGING INTEREST ON ADVANCED EXPENSES TO CLIENT ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional ConductOpinion No. 94-06 July, 1994 ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and other relevant materials in response to a specific hypothesized fact situation, they do not have the weight of law an

State of Colorado Comments It is the opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee that the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits the unilateral charging of interest by an attorney on a delinquent account for legal services, unless there has been a prior agreement between the attorney and the client which specifically states both the amount of interest and the time periods under which interest would be imposed. This opinion is a logical extension of Formal Opinion 338 of the

State of Connecticut Informal Opinion 99-42September 17, 1999Connecticut Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics. Advance Of Funds To Client By Third Party: The requester has asked for the opinion of this committee concerning whether it would be unethical for his office to participate in or to encourage his clients to participate in a program in which a Florida corporation has offered to advance money to personal injury claimants secured by the claimant’s potential recovery in the pers

State of Florida Comments For purposes of this inquiry, the Committee assumes that the professional services have been completed and the fee fixed and agreed upon. The assignment of a receivable representing a fee for professional services immediately raises concern about the confidential relationship between lawyer and client, including such confidential matters as the client’s need for legal services and amount of the fee owed for such services. Such assignment also poses ethical problems sho

State of California Comments The Committee interprets the inquiry to ask not about the ethicality of charging interest on costs advanced when they have already been billed to the client and become past due, but, rather, about the ethicality of charging interest from the time they are paid by the lawyer until the time they are billed. As to the former query, the Committee has previously stated that it is not improper for a lawyer, with the prior agreement of the client, to impose a reasonable in