Is it unusual for lawyer to charge $200 consult fee?

[LadyInTheRed]

Remember too, it can be argued that a free consultation doesn't give rise to attorney client privilege.

Anything can be argued, but I would be very suprised if you could come up with any case where it has been successfully argued that information given to an attorney by a propsective client during a free consultation was not privilged just because the consultation was free and the client didn't hire that attorney.

I know for certain that in California any information you provide to an attorney during a consultation, whether free or not, is privileged (with some limited exception like if you are going to commit a crime or if a court orders the attorney to provide information). I am pretty sure that the same is true in other states.

[Pandora]

Lady is correct..... Summarized:


"....The following are general requirements to establishing the existence of an attorney-client privilege:

* The holder of the privilege is (or sought to become) a client; and
* The person to whom the communication was made is either a member of the state bar, or his assistant, and is acting as an attorney as part of the communication; and
* The communication is made for the purpose of getting legal advice.

There are some exceptions to the attorney-client privilege, and you should be aware of them:

* The communication was made in the presence of or disclosed to persons who were not the attorney or client. If you are having an open honest conversation in public, it will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege if someone who overhears it brings it to the court.

* The communication was made to facilitate committing a crime.
* The client waives the privilege.
* The client publicly discloses the information.....

http://www.bankruptcylawfirms.com/resources/bankruptcy/filing-bankruptcy/attorney-client-privileges-bankruptcy-cases.htm

(hope it's ok to post the link)

[HHM]

This issue is getting off topic, but keep in mind, there is a difference between privilege and confidential. Also, nearly everything discussed in a consultation is somehow discoverable some other way or known by others, that the information, in a real sense, is not confidential. Privilege simply means the attorney cannot be compelled to disclose the information assuming the information is inherently confidential. As soon as the information is disclosed to a 3rd party, or if the information is not inherently confidential, privilege will not apply.

For example, if a debtor quit claimed a piece of real estate. Since that information exists in a public fashion recorded at a county recorders office, the information is not confidential and not privileged.

Attorney-client privilege is largely moot in the BK context...I wouldn't worry about. Yes, the meeting is subject to privilege, but the debtors financial circumstances are almost always discoverable by other means.