A related question is whether the lawyer who receives a removal tax in an emergency must sign the final declaration. Rule 4-1.5 (f) (5) gives a clear answer. This rule expressly states that any lawyer participating in the tax must sign the final declaration. For example, a lawyer who receives a transfer fee must sign the final declaration. First, it is unethical not to comply. Second, I have heard many stories in which the lawyer receiving the transfer does not pay a fee to the referring lawyer. Will not become one of these stories. If you have been referred to another lawyer or law firm, you should contact your lawyer to find out if a transfer fee will be paid at the end of your case. If a transfer fee is to be paid, the referral lawyer should have signed the contract to become co-responsible and you should have received a copy of the contract with the signature of the referral lawyer.

If there is disagreement as to the amount or whether the transfer fee is to be paid, it is best to resolve this issue before the eventuality (transaction or civil judgment) occurs. After the appearance of a contingency, as in this case, the voice of reason and fair trade seems to reign. After this complaint was filed on Carson`s behalf, the Law Society filed a formal complaint against Carson, claiming that he had referred clients to Vasilaros, that in three cases Carson and Vasilaros had entered into a verbal agreement for a 25 percent transfer fee, that Carson had not provided legal services in any of these cases, and that none of the clients had ever agreed in writing to pay transfer fees. An expulsor lawyer cannot impose a verbal agreement that does not comply with Rule 4-1.5 (g) (2). Noris v Silver, 701 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997). In Noris, the court said: After settling the case, Vitale requested an invoice from Katz`s law firm (which was later created after his resignation) and a dismissal of Katz`s former law firm before paying the transfer fee. It is not surprising that Katz`s former law firm refused to withdraw any rights to the costs of the case. However, if this were not serious enough, Katz`s former law firm appears to have successfully argued at the procedural level that she was entitled to transfer fees because Katz was employed at the time of the dismissal.

Therefore, the money belongs to the client as an updated statutory contingency fee (provided that any “Quantum Meruit” premium is negligible for Katz or her former employer). Similarly, the customer must be connected in the Interpleader action (even if he is not involved in the initial action). Vitale, since it was not possible to obtain the written agreement of the customer to pay a transfer fee, essentially has dirty hands when it comes to claiming the disputed transfer fees. Lawyers sometimes think that the rules for transfer fees only apply if they receive more than what they call the standard 25% transfer fee. However, there is no standard 25% transfer fee. It is very likely that this idea comes from the transfer fee rule at 4-1.5 (f) (4) (D), although it only applies to certain types of contingency fees. We are humble when the vast majority of clients in my firm are referred to us by other lawyers. I understand the concern and discomfort felt by a lawyer when a valued client is referred to another lawyer. Assuming that the allocation of royalties is ethical, always make sure that you are included in the pricing contract, the declaration of customers` rights. Do not speak the other lawyer that he or she will pay you. If they tell you that you don`t need to be on the pricing contract and the declaration of customer rights, it should be a red flag.

The best thing is to do it right. Make sure the recommendation is written and the customer agrees.