Sample Class Action Retainer Agreement

In Gamble v. Emperor Found. Health Plan, Inc. reviewed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, if a conservation agreement that characterized (1) the client`s recovery as the property of a lawyer, (2) explicitly recognized bargaining rights for those costs and (3) required clients to pay double the lawyer`s Lodestar tax when legal fees were issued under the settlement, constituted an inadmissible conflict of interest that regulates the inadmissibility of California ethics. A Federal Court decision provided new ethical guidelines for contingency fee agreements, which stipulated that such an agreement could constitute an unauthorized conflict of interest if a lawyer`s financial benefit was at the expense of his client`s recovery. In response to the defendant`s accusations of ethical incongruity, the complainants filed a Rule 16 motion in Gamble and the court`s inherent power to control the conduct of the lawyers before him. As the court described, the applicants sought an order to “dictate in advance the parameters of all settlement negotiations with the defendants” and to ask the court to “give its imprimatur to the applicant`s fee contract and confirm that it does not constitute a conflict of interest with the applicants or class mentioned.” Photo illustration of Genuine Pyun/iStockphoto by Getty Images Lawyer fees that come at the expense of a client`s restoration may constitute an ethical conflict of interest.