Rule 1.5 requires the lawyer to communicate with the client about the extent of the representation and the amount or rate of fees and expenses. The only exception to this requirement is when the lawyer regularly represents the client and they have a constant understanding of the pricing rules. The rule favours lawyers to communicate in writing with clients about fees and expenses, but it imposes a written agreement only in cases of events. (ABA model rules are the basis of most government rules on professional behaviour, which directly govern lawyers.) [3D] A lawyer who does not intend to collect a fee if the representation is interrupted before the eventuality that allows the lawyer to collect a fee under the terms of a conditional agreement would not be obliged to use paragraph (6) of the conditional forms of the agreement under Rule 1.5 (f) (1) and (2). However, if a lawyer expects to assert a fee entitled when the representation is completed before the eventuality, the lawyer must inform the client of his intention to retain the opportunity to assert a right by incorporating into the contract of engagement the content of paragraph 6 of the type form of conditional pricing agreement, and it is expected that he can provide statements of the work done. sufficient to support such a claim. The lawyer`s obligation to communicate with the client about the proposed fee agreements is reinforced by the Type 1.4 (communication) rule. The notice states that, in most cases, the customer`s response will be clear, but there are times when the customer`s acceptance of a rate change “can be inferred from the circumstances.”  Paragraph (f) contains models of contingency cost agreements and mentions the statements that a lawyer must provide to a client, unless the client is an organization, including a public or state agency. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has found that statutory authorizations for the granting of legal fees are generally based on the intention to allow private parties to enforce a law as attorney general of private lawyers and to recognize that, in many non-classical actions, judgment or prejudice can often be compensated for, or exceeded, by the successful legal fees of the plaintiffs.
Couture v. Mammoth Grocers, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 295 (1977). In considering arbitration awards under the Deferral Rights Act, the Court has always sought Rule 1.5 (a) or its predecessor to determine whether an arbitral award was appropriate. Z.B. McCabe v. Arcidy, 138 N.H. 20 (1993); In Re Estate of Rolfe, 136 N.H.