What Do You Do When a Client Stops Paying but Wants You to Keep Working?

The warning comes first, and it goes in writing

Rule 1.16(b)(5) works only after the client has been warned that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is met. The rule sets no form and no number of days, and Opinion 523 says an engagement agreement may not dispense with the warning. So the warning is its own step, taken when the balance is overdue, not a clause the client signed months earlier.

The GPSolo article argues for an early, direct conversation with the client, not a reminder from accounting or a forwarded invoice, to tie further work back to the agreed payment terms. It also warns that when urgent work keeps going unpaid, the client learns that the replenishment clause is not really enforced. The written warning that follows can be short, with the facts taken from the billing records:

• The amount past due, by invoice number and date, and any shortfall against the trust balance the agreement requires.
• The payment or replenishment clause the client agreed to, quoted with its section number.
• A cure date for payment, or for a written payment arrangement the firm accepts.
• The consequence, as the rule frames it: the firm will withdraw, or ask the court for permission to withdraw, unless the obligation is met.
• What the client receives if the firm withdraws: the file, an accounting of funds held in trust, and a refund of any unearned advance.

Record on the matter the date of the call, who spoke, what was promised, the letter’s date and method, and the cure date. If a real deadline falls before the cure date, the GPSolo article’s advice is to do that one piece of work and confirm in writing that it is a limited accommodation and that the account is still past due.

When the matter is in court: permission, and what the motion may say

Outside a court proceeding, ABA Formal Opinion 519 notes, a lawyer may withdraw without disclosing confidential information to third parties. In a pending case the court decides, on its own calendar, and the GPSolo article stresses timing: a motion raised early enough for new counsel to step in is a different request from one filed on the eve of trial.

Opinion 519, issued December 3, 2025, concludes that neither Rule 1.6 nor Rule 1.16 implicitly authorizes revealing information relating to the representation to support a motion to withdraw, and sets out a sequence:

• File first with no confidential client information beyond a reference to “professional considerations” or similar words.
• If the court says it needs more, ask it to rule without confidential information, asserting every nonfrivolous claim for keeping it confidential.
• If the court orders more, give only what is reasonably necessary, by the most restricted means available, such as in camera review or a filing under seal.
• If the court says the motion will be denied without more but orders nothing, remind it of the duty of confidentiality and ask that any order limit the disclosure.

For unpaid fees, Opinion 519 summarizes the earlier Formal Opinion 476 (2016): once a judge asks for more, Rule 1.6(b)(5) permits disclosure limited to what is reasonably necessary to respond, and where practicable the lawyer first tries to get the client to act so that no disclosure is needed. The court’s own rules govern the procedure.

What the firm returns: the file and any unearned fee in trust

Withdrawing for nonpayment does not shrink the exit duties. Rule 1.16(d) gives examples of the steps it requires: “giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.” Comment [9] allows keeping papers as security for a fee “only to the extent permitted by law,” which makes it a question for ethics counsel before anything is held back.

Under Rule 1.15(c), fees paid in advance sit in a client trust account, “to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.” If the firm and the client disagree about what is owed, Rule 1.15(e) keeps the disputed portion separate until the dispute is resolved and requires prompt distribution of the rest, and Comment [3] says a lawyer “may not hold funds to coerce a client into accepting the lawyer’s contention.” A flat fee earned in stages makes this step easier, because the record already shows which stage was finished.

What counts as the file varies by state. ABA Formal Opinion 520, issued January 21, 2026, contrasts the narrower “end product” approach of Formal Opinion 471 (2015) with the “entire file” approach some jurisdictions take, and describes a limited duty to answer successor counsel’s questions about information that never made it into the file.

A close-out checklist keeps the exit from depending on anyone’s mood: a final invoice through the termination date; the trust ledger for the matter reconciled, the unearned balance refunded and any disputed amount left in trust; the file delivered, with date, recipient and contents recorded; and upcoming deadlines sent in writing to the client or successor counsel.

Collections and fee suits: what the firm may reveal

A firm may pursue an unpaid fee. Rule 1.6(b)(5) permits disclosure “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client,” and Comment [11] says a lawyer entitled to a fee may rely on it “to prove the services rendered in an action to collect it.” Comment [16] sets the limit: no more than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, and in a court proceeding, seen only by those who need it.

Check two things first. Comment [9] to Rule 1.5 says a lawyer must use a bar fee-dispute procedure, such as arbitration or mediation, when it is mandatory and should conscientiously consider it when it is voluntary. And the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act defines a “debt” as an obligation from a transaction “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,” and a “debt collector” to include anyone who regularly collects debts owed to another, so an agency collecting a fee for a personal matter, such as a divorce, may fall inside it. Whether a given account does is a question for counsel.

A referral form for the agency, approved once by ethics counsel, carries only what collecting needs: the client’s name and contact details, the amount, and the invoice numbers, dates and totals. The facts of the matter stay out. Before any suit, the GPSolo article adds a business test: a claim for fees may draw a malpractice counterclaim, however weak, and may cost more than the balance it chases.

What the engagement letter should say for the next matter

Most of this is settled at intake. Rule 1.5(b) has the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses communicated to the client, preferably in writing, and Comment [2] says a written statement “reduces the possibility of misunderstanding.” Opinion 523 adds that the agreement may list the client’s obligations, payment among them, and may state the grounds for withdrawal, as long as it does so accurately.

It may not expand those grounds beyond Rule 1.16, drop the reasonable warning, imply withdrawal over a lapse that is not substantial or without a court’s required permission, omit the firm’s duty to protect the client’s interests on the way out, imply that a motion will reveal confidential information, or require a blanket, irrevocable advance consent to a future withdrawal. Within those limits, a letter written with nonpayment in mind covers five things:

• The billing cycle, the due date, and how the client pays.
• The advance deposit, held in trust and drawn only as fees are earned; for an evergreen retainer, the floor, how quickly the client replenishes it, and who sends the request.
• The sequence when an account falls behind: a call, a written warning with a cure date, then withdrawal as Rule 1.16 permits, with the court’s permission where it is required.
• What the client receives when the representation ends, including the file and a refund of any unearned advance.
• How fee disputes are resolved, including the bar’s arbitration or mediation program where one exists.

A replenishment clause the firm never enforces, the GPSolo article warns, stops meaning anything to the client. The wording is for the firm’s attorneys and its bar’s ethics counsel.

A weekly list that keeps the decision early

Nonpayment turns into a dilemma when nobody looks until the balance is large and a hearing is close. One list, refreshed every week from the billing reports and the trust balance report the firm already keeps, moves the decision forward:

• Matter number and responsible attorney, with no facts of the matter.
• Past-due balance and the age of the oldest unpaid invoice.
• Trust balance against the floor in the engagement agreement, and the date replenishment was requested.
• Date of the payment conversation, date of the written warning, and the cure date.
• Whether the matter is before a court, and the next hearing, filing deadline or trial date.
• The next step, and who owns it.

Billing refreshes the list on Monday, each responsible attorney updates their rows, and the managing partner reads every matter past its cure date. A hypothetical example: a trust balance fell below the floor six weeks ago, two invoices totaling $18,000 are unpaid, a hearing is three months out, and no warning has gone out. The list puts the call and the warning on this week, and the decision about a motion well ahead of the hearing. The matter and numbers are hypothetical.

When to call ethics counsel, and where the Review fits

One client who stops paying is a question for the firm’s ethics counsel, not for a consultant: the warning, the motion and any collection step turn on the state’s rules and the court’s. A solo lawyer who bills and collects personally can keep the weekly list on a single page.

An outside reading of a law firm’s billing records is worth paying for when nonpayment is one leak among several: replenishment requests nobody sent, time recorded and never billed, final invoices sent weeks after a matter closed, past-due balances with no owner. The Revenue Review reads counts, dates and balances from the firm’s own billing and matter exports, de-identified wherever possible. It never opens the trust account, never contacts a client and gives no legal or ethics advice; Lumina is not a law firm. It takes two weeks and ends in a written report the firm keeps.

The free 20-minute call is where we say whether it fits, including when the honest answer is ethics counsel and a spreadsheet. Below about $1 million a year in fees, the Review’s price does not fit, and the call says so.