Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 1 of 8
How family-law fees are set and billed
Evidence published for review
Every source row behind this page is currently marked unverified: an automated check matched every quote and number to an archived copy of its source, and an independent review pass read every row, but the per-row human sign-off defined in the research methods has not been recorded yet. Check any claim against the sources list before relying on it.
Most of what can be documented about family-law billing is the rule text that governs it: retainers, written fee agreements, billing for communications, and court orders that shift fees between spouses. How common each arrangement is has not been measured by any source found.
What the fee rules require
The ABA model fee rule bars unreasonable fees, asks lawyers to communicate the basis or rate of the fee "preferably in writing", and bars any fee in a domestic relations matter that is contingent on securing a divorce or on the amount of alimony, support or a property settlement [ABA Model Rule 1.5, 2026, Client-Lawyer Relationship BIL-001]. The model rule is not binding until a state adopts its own version [ABA Model Rule 1.5, 2026, Client-Lawyer Relationship BIL-001].
Wisconsin goes further than the model text: the basis or rate of the fee must be communicated in writing (orally only if the total cost is foreseeably $1000 or less), the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee must be communicated in writing when the total cost exceeds $1000, and contingent fees are barred in any action affecting the family except for collecting past-due support, maintenance or property division [Wisconsin SCR 20:1.5, 2016-07, PDF p. 1 BIL-024; Wisconsin SCR 20:1.5, 2016-07, PDF p. 2 BIL-024]. New York bars a "nonrefundable retainer fee" (a plainly defined minimum fee clause is allowed) and any domestic relations fee without a written retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and client [NY Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5, 2026, Rule Text BIL-021].
Retainers and replenishment
New York's rules for lawyers in domestic relations matters, in the version posted after they took effect in 1993, require a signed, plain-language retainer agreement that states "How the attorney will be paid through the conclusion of the case after the retainer is depleted; whether the client may be asked to pay another lump sum" and the "Hourly rate of each person whose time may be charged to the client" [22 NYCRR Part 1400, 1993-11, 22 NYCRR sec. 1400 BIL-006].
An ABA formal ethics opinion that names a divorce as an example says fees paid in advance must be held in a client trust account and "may be withdrawn only as earned", and that labels "do not dictate whether a fee has been earned" [ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 1 BIL-016; ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 4 BIL-016].
A practice article by a legal payments company, published on an ABA practice management site, describes an "evergreen retainer clause" as a fee-agreement term that "outlines when a client must replenish funds and by how much" [ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019]. The article is general practice guidance, not specific to family law [ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019].
No source found measures how often family-law engagements use advance retainers, how often retainers are replenished, or how often evergreen clauses are used. The rules and articles above show what is permitted, not how common it is [22 NYCRR Part 1400, 1993-11, 22 NYCRR sec. 1400 BIL-006; ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 1 BIL-016; ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019].
Billing for calls, email and time increments
A North Carolina State Bar ethics opinion holds that "A lawyer may bill for intra-office communications about a client's matter", provided the lawyer sets a reasonable hourly rate, discloses the basis of the charges, avoids "wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant procedures" and makes sure the total cost "is not clearly excessive" [North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, Opinion: BIL-017; North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hou... BIL-017].
A Georgia advisory opinion states that "It is the practice of many attorneys to bill on a time-expended basis, and to bill for time expended by rounding to standard units of from 6 to 15 minutes", and that "repeatedly rounding up from one minute to fifteen minutes is questionable at best" under the reasonable-fee rule [Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1, 2001-05-03, Original opinion text BIL-018].
New York's required statement of client's rights in domestic relations matters entitles clients to "a written, itemized bill on a regular basis, at least every 60 days" and says "Time spent in discussion or explanation of bills will not be charged to you" [22 NYCRR 1400.2, 2026, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400... BIL-005]. The same statement warns that "There are no guarantees that the cost of your case will be as originally estimated" [22 NYCRR 1400.2, 2026, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400... BIL-005].
Neither ethics opinion is specific to family law, the North Carolina opinion covers communications inside the firm rather than client calls or texts, and no source found measures how often family lawyers bill for communications or in what minimum increments [North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hou... BIL-017; Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1, 2001-05-03, Original opinion text BIL-018].
Hourly rates and other fee arrangements
In a 2023 State Bar of Michigan survey of 2022 rates, 386 respondents reported a family-law hourly rate: the median was $300, the 25th percentile $250, the 75th percentile $350 and the 95th percentile $450 [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 8 BIL-015]. The survey was voluntary: it was emailed to 41,065 members and completed by 3,819 [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015]. It reports rates for those who bill by the hour and says nothing about how many family-law matters are billed hourly [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015].
A California Judicial Council task force stated in 2010 that "The average family law attorney in California charges more than $300 per hour and requires a retainer of approximately $5,000" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002]. The report gives no data source or sample for these figures [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
No source found reports family-law attorney fees from billing records; every attorney-fee figure on this page is self-reported or an unsourced estimate [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
A legal-software company's report page says "hourly billing is the most common, offered by 71% of law firms", and that "71% of clients prefer to pay a flat fee for their entire case" [Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020]. Its figures cover all practice areas and the page does not publish a method or sample [Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
No family-law-specific share of hourly, flat-fee and limited-scope engagements was found. This page therefore does not say that hourly billing dominates family law [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
A 2008 article on family-law fees in the State Bar of Michigan's journal states that "Hourly billing may lead to a conflict of interest between the lawyer and the client" and that flat fees are appropriate "when the issues involved in the case are relatively common" [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014; Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 4 BIL-014]. It is one practitioner's opinion, not a finding [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014].
No source in this evidence base measures whether the billing method changes how family cases are litigated [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
California's court rules expressly provide for "limited scope representation" in family law cases, in which the lawyer is engaged for specific tasks only [Cal. Rules of Court 5.425, 2026 BIL-008], and the ABA model rule allows a lawyer to limit the scope of a representation "if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent" [ABA CPR compilation, 2021-09-20, PDF p. 1 BIL-022].
A Maryland access-to-justice commission white paper argued for limited scope representation, noting that some clients "may simply be worried that they cannot evaluate the full cost of representation at the outset and want to limit the costs" [Maryland Access to Justice Commission, 2009-09, PDF p. 1 BIL-023].
Neither the rules nor the white paper measure how often limited-scope engagements are used in family cases or what they save [Cal. Rules of Court 5.425, 2026 BIL-008; ABA CPR compilation, 2021-09-20, PDF p. 1 BIL-022; Maryland Access to Justice Commission, 2009-09, PDF p. 1 BIL-023].
Orders that shift fees between spouses
California directs the court to ensure each party has access to legal representation by ordering, where the income and needs assessments make it necessary, one party to pay the other's reasonably necessary fees during the case, and states that "If the findings demonstrate disparity in access and ability to pay, the court shall make an order awarding attorney's fees and costs" [California Family Code 2030, 2011-01-01, 2030. BIL-003]. A court rule requires a party asking for need-based fees to give the court "the attorney's hourly billing rate" and the fees incurred or anticipated [Cal. Rules of Court 5.427, 2026 BIL-009].
New York creates "a rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse", and both parties and their lawyers must file an affidavit stating the retainer, the amounts paid and still owing, and "the hourly amount charged by the attorney" [NY Domestic Relations Law 237, 2026, (6) BIL-002]. Wisconsin's power is discretionary: after considering both parties' financial resources the court "may" order either party to pay a reasonable amount toward the other's costs and attorney fees [Wisconsin statute 767.241, 2026 BIL-004].
These provisions change which spouse pays; none of those quoted here sets a ceiling on the amount billed [NY Domestic Relations Law 237, 2026, (6) BIL-002; California Family Code 2030, 2011-01-01, 2030. BIL-003; Wisconsin statute 767.241, 2026 BIL-004].
Fee complaints in bar data
A study of all 4,898 grievances filed with Wisconsin's Office of Lawyer Regulation in criminal and family matters from 2013 to 2016 found "Excessive or Unreasonable Fees" alleged in 9.03% of family-matter grievances, failure to return unearned fees in 1.17% and general fee allegations in .94% [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 4 BIL-011; Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 13 BIL-011]. The most frequent family-matter allegation was lack of diligence, at 16.02% [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 13 BIL-011]. These are allegations, not proven misconduct [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 4 BIL-011].
New York's fee-arbitration program says fee disputes from matrimonial representation "continue to be the majority case type" [NY Fee Dispute Resolution Program, 2019-11, PDF p. 8 BIL-013]. Its 2018 report gives 375 such cases in its text while its chart shows a largest category of 413 of the 825 cases closed, so the exact count cannot be confirmed from the archived copy [NY Fee Dispute Resolution Program, 2019-11, PDF p. 3 BIL-013].
Family law was 12% of docketed complaints in Maryland in fiscal year 2023, third behind criminal defense at 20% and civil litigation at 17% [Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-007]. Virginia's bar reported 145 family-law complaints against 151 criminal-law complaints in fiscal year 2021 [Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010]. Wisconsin's regulator reports family law as the second most common practice area in grievances in fiscal year 2024-2025 [Wisconsin OLR, 2025, PDF p. 4 BIL-012].
The Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin annual counts are not specific to fees [Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-007; Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010; Wisconsin OLR, 2025, PDF p. 4 BIL-012]. In Virginia, roughly 66 percent of complaints in all practice areas were resolved summarily because the conduct did not present an issue under the professional conduct rules [Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010].
Sources for this section
0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off. What the explainer does not claim.
BIL-001 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5 Fees (rule text)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule, not binding law; each state adopts its own version (see state rows). Date is the capture year of the current rule text. Archived via Wayback because americanbar.org returns 403. The "preferably in writing" language means a writing is recommended, not required, in the model text.
Pages quoted: section: Client-Lawyer Relationship; section: Client-Lawyer Relationship; section: Client-Lawyer Relationship. Claim tags: C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-002 N.Y. Domestic Relations Law section 237 (counsel fees and expenses)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text; the mirror's source line says the official text was updated Nov. 27, 2015. Official nysenate.gov and justia.com returned 403 to the archiver, so the statute text is archived from NewYork.Public.Law, a non-official mirror; wording should be re-checked against the official Laws of New York. The quoted text is DRL 237(a); the mirror's heading for it reads '(6)', which is why page_section says (6). The presumption is rebuttable and the award is discretionary.
Pages quoted: section: (6); section: (6). Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.1~ C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the effective date of the current version (amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 352). Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403). Fee shifting here is need-based, not prevailing-party; it depends on the court's findings.
Pages quoted: section: 2030.; section: 2030.. Claim tags: C1.6+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-004 Wis. Stat. section 767.241 (award of attorney fees and other fees and costs)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the capture year of the chapter page; 767.241 was last amended by 2005 Wis. Act 443 per its own history note (the 2025 acts on the page belong to other sections). Primary legislature source; the cited subsection is 767.241(1)(a). Discretionary, so a fee award is not guaranteed.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text. Cornell LII reproduction of the regulation (official nycourts.gov pages returned 403/404 to the archiver). Applies to attorneys in NY Supreme and Family Court matters for divorce, custody, support and similar (see 22 NYCRR 1400.1).
Pages quoted: section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities; section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities; section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities. Claim tags: C1.5+ C1.3~ C1.4~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Date is the Part's effective date (Nov. 30, 1993, per section 1400.1, which applies the Part to divorce, separation, annulment, custody, visitation, maintenance, child support and alimony matters in Supreme or Family Court). Archived from the Wayback capture of an older posted version of the Part (form footers dated 12/94); current section 1400.3 wording may have changed, so check the current rule. Shows that hourly-rate and depleted-retainer arrangements are contemplated by the rule; it does not measure how often they are used.
Pages quoted: section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400; section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400; section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.1~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-007 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Annual Report and Statistical Report, Fiscal Year 2023
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Matters docketed for further investigation by Maryland Bar Counsel in FY 2023 (156 docketed of 1,614 files opened); practice-area percentages as published; per-area counts not given.
Reliability notes: Regulator's own summary. Counts complaints docketed (after initial screening), not sustained violations, and is not fee-specific: it does not say how many family-law complaints concerned fees.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3. Claim tags: C1.7~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the edition year of the Rules of Court page. Shows legal availability only, not how often such engagements are used. Limited scope concerns the scope of work, not the billing basis (the rule contemplates 'the time involved or other basis for billing'), so it is not evidence about the share of hourly billing.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C6.6~ C1.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-009 California Rules of Court, rule 5.427 (attorney's fees and costs based on financial need)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the edition year; the rule was renumbered effective 2013. Procedural rule implementing Family Code 2030; shows that fee-shifting requests are evaluated on hourly-rate evidence, not how many cases use hourly billing.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.1~ C1.4~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Complaints received by the Virginia State Bar in FY 2021 (2,924); the area-of-law counts come from the Bar's Chart 2, whose base is not stated in the text; regulator summary, no sampling.
Reliability notes: Regulator's published message, not a dataset; counts complaints received, not violations found. The 66 percent dismissal figure is for all areas combined, so it qualifies but does not specifically describe family-law complaints. Not fee-specific.
Pages quoted: section: Bar Counsel's Message; section: Bar Counsel's Message; section: Bar Counsel's Message. Claim tags: C1.7~ C1.7-
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population study of all 4,898 grievances filed with the Wisconsin OLR in family (1,762, 36 percent) or criminal (3,135) law matters, 2013-2016, involving 2,123 lawyers; OLR-supplied data; Wisconsin only.
Reliability notes: Prepared for the regulator and based on its data; not peer reviewed; archived from the Texas A&M Law faculty scholarship repository. Counts allegations in grievances, not proven misconduct. Fee allegations are a minority of family-matter allegations.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.13; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C1.7+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-012 Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, Annual Report FY 2024-2025
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population: all 2,110 new grievance and inquiry matters received by Wisconsin OLR in FY 2024-2025; no per-area percentage quoted in the section used
Reliability notes: Regulator's own annual report; ranks areas without giving a family-law percentage in the passage used, and is not fee-specific.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.7~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-013 New York Fee Dispute Resolution Program (Part 137) Annual Report 2018
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population: all cases closed by New York local Part 137 programs in calendar year 2018 (825 cases closed per the report)
Reliability notes: Official program report (archived via Wayback; direct fetch returned 403). Internally inconsistent: the text gives 375 matrimonial and 75 real estate cases, but the Chart 5 data labels sum to 825 with a largest value of 413 [derived: 413 / 825 = 50.1 percent] and a second of 112; category labels did not survive text extraction, so which figure is right cannot be confirmed from the archive. Covers only disputes brought to the program, which has monetary-jurisdiction limits and excludes some categories (the report itself lists dismissals for lack of jurisdiction).
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C1.7+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: practitioner article (no sample)
Reliability notes: Opinion article in a bar journal from 2008, written by a practitioner; it is a position, not a finding, and it discusses a Michigan disciplinary board opinion that is not relied on here. Describes norms and ethical views, not prevalence.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Voluntary online survey of State Bar of Michigan members conducted 2023 for 2022 rates: emailed to 41,065 active members, 18,292 opened, 3,819 completed (20.9% of those who opened; private practitioners responded at a higher rate); family law hourly-rate n = 386.
Reliability notes: Self-reported by Michigan bar members who chose to respond; rates are stated hourly rates by respondents who bill by the hour, so the table says nothing about the share of family-law work billed hourly versus flat.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-016 ABA Formal Opinion 505 (2023): Fees Paid in Advance for Contemplated Services
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Advisory interpretation of the Model Rules, not binding on any state; it addresses advance fees generally and does not discuss replenishment ("evergreen") clauses.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Covers intra-office (lawyer-staff) emails, not client calls or texts, and is not family-law specific; one state's opinion. It quotes ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 on disclosure and padding.
Pages quoted: section: 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hourly Rate for Intra-Office Communications; section: Opinion:. Claim tags: C1.3~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-018 Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1: Billing in standard time units
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Reproduced on a third-party site (Ezel) that labels the text as reproduced from the official source; verify against gabar.org. Not family-law specific and does not mention calls or emails; supports the existence and limits of minimum-unit billing, not its prevalence in family law.
Pages quoted: section: Original opinion text; section: Original opinion text. Claim tags: C1.3~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-019 Lawyer Retainers: Definition, Purpose, and Ethics (ABA Law Technology Today, 2025)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: practice-management article
Reliability notes: Vendor-authored content (byline LawPay, a legal payments company) on an ABA site, not an ABA position; typed professional association for the publishing venue only. General practice guidance, not family-law specific, and not a prevalence measure; it shows that evergreen retainers exist as a recognized arrangement. Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: Refilling the Retainer Balance. Claim tags: C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-020 Clio, Legal Trends Report - flat fees (web page)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: method not published on the page used (Clio's Legal Trends Report is based on Clio platform data and surveys; details not archived here)
Reliability notes: Vendor marketing page that summarizes a larger report; edition year and sample are not stated on the archived page; figures are across all practice areas, not family law. Date is the Wayback capture year; the report edition is not stated. Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: Clients prefer flat fees; section: Law firms are doing more flat fee work. Claim tags: C1.1~ C1.1-
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-021 N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5 Fees (text including 1.5(d)(4)-(5))
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text. Non-official reproduction of the New York rule (official source not archived); lead-in words of rule 1.5(d) are outside the quoted segment. New York is stricter than the ABA model text, which has no signed-writing requirement for domestic relations fees.
Pages quoted: section: Rule Text. Claim tags: C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: rule text and state variation compilation
Reliability notes: The compilation shows legal permission, not use; the state-by-state variations were not individually reviewed for this row. Archived copy is hosted by the State Bar of Nevada (nvbar.org), a third-party copy of the ABA CPR compilation. Limited scope concerns scope of work, not the billing basis.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-023 Limited Scope Representation in Maryland: A White Paper of the Maryland Access to Justice Commission
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: policy white paper
Reliability notes: White paper by a court-affiliated access-to-justice commission (2009) arguing for limited scope representation: a position, not a finding. It describes the model and its rationale (including a la carte pricing) rather than measuring its use or its effect on family-law fees.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.6~ C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-024 Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:1.5 (Fees), effective July 1, 2016
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Official rule text as posted by the Wisconsin OLR, archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 404); the version is the one effective July 1, 2016, and later amendments were not checked. Stricter than the ABA model text on the written-basis requirement.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.2; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C1.5+ C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
CST-002 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations (April 2010)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: task force report; the findings come from 15 months of information gathering, outreach and discussion, not from a sampled dataset.
Reliability notes: Government task force assertions without a cited dataset in the quoted passages; the $300 per hour and $5,000 retainer figures are unsourced averages. The run-out-of-money statement is the closest official statement to asset or income exhaustion found for claim C2.3 but is anecdotal and does not measure fees as a share of assets. Single state, 2010 (post-recession context).
Pages quoted: pdf p.12; pdf p.16; pdf p.16. Claim tags: C2.1~ C2.2~ C2.3~ C2.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show