1.2:240 CLIENT-LAWYER AGREEMENTS

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

1.2:240 Client-Lawyer Agreements

Although the attorney-client relationship is essentially contractual in nature, a written employment or engagement agreement is ordinarily not required to establish the relationship. The relationship may be express or implied from the circumstances. In re Petrie, 154 Ariz. 295, 742 P.2d 796 (1987). ER 1.5(b), however, requires in most instances a written engagement agreement that sets forth the "scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fees and expenses." In addition, the absence of payment by the client to the lawyer is not dispositive of whether an attorney-client relationship has been established. Franko v. Mitchell, 158 Ariz. 391, 762 P.2d 1345 (App. 1988). As previously discussed, the test for determining whether an attorney-client relationship has been formed is an objective one, with an important factor being whether the client had a reasonable expectation that one existed.

ER 1.2(c) provides: "A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent." As Comments [6], [7], and [8] explain:

[6] The scope of services to be provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer's services are made available to the client. Representation provided through a legal aid agency may be subject to limitations on the types of cases the agency handles. When a lawyer has been retained by an insurer to represent an insured, for example, the representation may be limited to matters related to the insurance coverage. A limited representation may be appropriate because the client has limited objectives for the representation. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client's objectives. Such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent.

[7] Although this Rule affords the lawyer and the client substantial latitude to limit the representation, the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances. If, for example, a client's objective is limited to securing general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer's services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation...