When a lawyer cancels a trip for one client's case to handle an emergency for another, who pays for the nonrefundable ticket?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer purchased a non-refundable, non-exchangeable airline ticket to Texas for a deposition in Client A's case. At a conflicting time, opposing counsel in Client B's case obtained a court order compelling a medical exam of Client B, and the lawyer states that her attendance was required for Client B because of Client B's mental incapacity. The lawyer asked whom to bill for the unusable ticket.

The committee answered through RPC 1.5, which provides that a fee must be reasonable and reflective of the work performed for or expenses incurred on behalf of a client. It concluded that Client B is not responsible for the cost of the ticket purchased for Client A's case, because that cost is not reasonably related to the costs of representing Client B. It also concluded that, because the lawyer unilaterally decided to attend the non-mandatory event rather than the deposition, Client A is not responsible for the ticket unless Client A consented. The committee directed the lawyer to review RPC 1.2 (scope of representation), RPC 1.4(b) (communication with clients), and RPC 1.13 (clients under a disability).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here. In the 2006 revisions Washington renumbered its client-with-a-disability rule (the former RPC 1.13) to RPC 1.14, tracking ABA Model Rule 1.14, so verify the current rule and citation before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer bill the second client for a ticket bought for the first client's case?

A: No. The committee concluded the second client is not responsible, because under RPC 1.5 the cost is not reasonably related to the work of representing that client.

Q: Can the lawyer bill the first client for the wasted ticket?

A: Only with that client's consent. The committee said that because the lawyer unilaterally decided to attend the non-mandatory event rather than the deposition, the first client is not responsible unless the client consented.

Q: What rules did the committee point the lawyer to?

A: It directed the lawyer to review RPC 1.2 (scope of representation), RPC 1.4(b) (communication with clients), and RPC 1.13 (clients under a disability).

Background and rules framework

The opinion turned on Washington RPC 1.5 (fees), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5, under which a fee or cost charged to a client must be reasonable and reflective of work done or expenses incurred for that client. The committee also pointed to RPC 1.2 (scope of representation, MR 1.2), RPC 1.4(b) (communication, MR 1.4), and RPC 1.13 (clients under a disability, the rule then numbered 1.13 in Washington and corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.14).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5
• ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation); Washington RPC 1.2
• ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication); Washington RPC 1.4(b)
• ABA Model Rule 1.14 (client with diminished capacity); Washington RPC 1.13

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1552: Advancing Exam vs Treatment Costs
• WA Ethics Op. 1677: Suing a Client for Unpaid Costs
• WA Ethics Op. 1736: Hold-Harmless Pledge of Lawyer Credit

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1079

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1886
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.2; 1.4(b); 1.5; 1.13
Subject: Fees; costs; lawyer purchased nonrefundable airline ticket for use in one client's case and had to cancel trip for work on behalf of second client

The inquiring lawyer purchased a non-refundable, non-exchangeable airline ticket to Texas for a deposition for client A. Over her objection and at a time conflicting with Client A’s deposition, opposing counsel in a case involving Client B obtained a court order to compel a medical exam for client B. Inquiring lawyer states that her attendance was required for Client B because of Client B’s mental incapacity. Inquiring lawyer asks whom to bill for the unusable ticket.

RPC 1.5 provides that a fee must be reasonable and reflective of the work performed for or expenses incurred on behalf of a client. Client B (the client requiring the medical exam) is not responsible for the cost of the ticket purchased for Client A’s case (the client with a medical expert’s deposition in Texas) because that cost is not reasonably related to the costs of representing client B. Because the lawyer unilaterally decided to attend the non-mandatory event rather than attending the deposition, client A is not responsible for the ticket unless client A consented. The lawyer is directed to review RPC 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.4(b) (communication with clients), and 1.13 (clients under a disability).