Alaska Employment Law

A plaintiff’s attorney whose only source of payment is a possible statutory fee award faces ethical challenges when the defendant proposes a lump sum settlement that doesn’t provide for an adequate fee recovery.  We earlier reviewed a proposal from some academics, which apparently went nowhere with the American Bar Association.  Now the California Bar Association has addressed some of the same problems, in Cal. Bar Formal Op. 2009-176. 

The opinion concludes:

1. A lawyer must inform the client of a fee-waiver settlement offer and consummate the settlement in accordance with the client’s wishes even if it reduces the likelihood of recovering some or all of his or her fees.

2. A lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case.

3. A lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying fee-waiver settlement offers in cases generally.

Questions: Does this bar the assertion of an attorney’s lien (with the client’s consent) at the outset of the case?  See AS 34.35.430(a)(4).  Is it even possible to get consent of “the client” in a class action that hasn’t yet been certified?