California Statutes

§ 6147. — 6147. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 479, Sec. 3) by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1104, Sec. 9.)

California·Code BPC Business and Professions Code - BPC·Div. 3. DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY·Ch. 4. CHAPTER 4. Attorneys·Art. 8.5. ARTICLE 8.5. Fee Agreements
(a)An attorney who contracts to represent a client on a contingency fee basis shall, at the time the contract is entered into, provide a duplicate copy of the contract, signed by both the attorney and the client, or the client’s guardian or representative, to the plaintiff, or to the client’s guardian or representative. The contract shall be in writing and shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1)A statement of the contingency fee rate that the client and attorney have agreed upon.
(2)A statement as to how disbursements and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or settlement of the claim will affect the contingency fee and the client’s recovery.
(3)A statement as to what extent, if any, the client could be required to pay any compensation to the attor

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

California § 6147. (6147. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 479, Sec. 3) by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1104, Sec. 9.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richard M. Rosenthal v. Jane Fonda
862 F.2d 1398 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
21 case citations
Pony v. County of Los Angeles
433 F.3d 1138 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
11 case citations
Chaganti v. 12 Phone International, Inc.
635 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. California, 2007)
6 case citations
In Re Kucek Development Corp.
113 B.R. 652 (E.D. California, 1990)
5 case citations
County of Orange v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In Re County of Orange)
241 B.R. 212 (C.D. California, 1999)
4 case citations
Knight v. Aqui
966 F. Supp. 2d 989 (N.D. California, 2013)
3 case citations
Sundquist v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Sundquist)
576 B.R. 858 (E.D. California, 2017)
3 case citations
Doto v. Berryhill
(N.D. California, 2023)
Joseph Padgett v. A. Wright
(Ninth Circuit, 2021)
Neasham & Kramer LLP v. Neff
(E.D. California, 2022)
Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno
(N.D. California, 2019)
Briceno v. Saul
(S.D. California, 2024)
Maxon v. Initiative Legal Group CA1/2
(California Court of Appeal, 2015)

Legislative History

Amended (as amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 479, Sec. 3) by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1104, Sec. 9. Effective January 1, 1997. Section operative January 1, 2000, by its own provisions.

Nearby Sections

2
View on official source ↗