In the Matter of Juliet Carol Gilbert

Summary

The court affirmed the Hearing Board's determination that Gilbert did not violate Rule 1.16(d) by retaining the portion of a flat-fee advance payment attributable to services she performed before discharge. It held that a noncontingent flat-fee agreement need not expressly provide for quantum meruit recovery upon early termination, and that fees may be earned when the attorney performs legal services or confers a benefit, even if the agreement lacks milestones. The court distinguished the special notice requirements applicable to contingent-fee arrangements from flat-fee agreements.