Every week, we hear from legal consumers who have spent months and sometimes years embroiled in disputes with lawyers, trying to fight overblown attorney fees. Often, if they weren't bankrupted by the original overcharge, they almost certainly were by having to hire another lawyer to complete the work or fight the first bill, if they were able to afford either.

"My attorney just sent me a bill for charges that I never agreed to," one person told us today. "Trouble is, it's now my word against his." Indeed, many cases boil down to a "he said, she said" battle because sadly, a payment arrangement between attorney and client too often takes the form of an undocumented casual conversation.

Perhaps the most frequent advice that an attorney gives her client is to "get it in writing." So it's astonishing that the American Bar Association, the nation's gold standard on ethics rules for lawyers, doesn't require written attorney-client fee agreements. Regrettably, most states have also failed to compel lawyers to put fee agreements in writing.

Five years ago, the ABA issued its much-ballyhooed "Ethics 2000 Report" and recommended updates to its model ethics rules for lawyers for the first time in two decades. Recognizing the harm that fee misunderstandings cause, the Ethics 2000 Commission initially called for a requirement that these agreements be in writing. Unfortunately, this recommendation was rebuffed by the ABA delegates. The final version maintained the original rule, only expressing that these agreements be "preferably in writing."

It's difficult to understand why the ABA would weaken the Commission's recommendation, when a writing requirement would dramatically reduce the occurrence of these harmful disputes between lawyers and clients. The ABA's use of weak language allows states to dilute this rule even further, as Oregon has, by not even preferring that these critical agreements be in writing. Other states have simply mirrored the ABA's recommendation, while 33 have yet to even examine this critical issue.

Refusing to merely rubberstamp a rule that leaves consumers vulnerable, four states have taken a stand against the ABA's toothless guidance. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Montana followed our recommendations by unambiguously requiring their attorneys to put fee agreements on paper.

While requiring written fee agreements is an easy first step to help protect consumers, the rule is less beneficial if the written agreement is not user-friendly. Written fee agreements currently in circulation are often intentionally vague, confusing and biased against the client.

Many individuals mistakenly believe, for example, that they will owe nothing if the lawyer loses the case—a reasonable belief after viewing lawyer advertisements that claim "You Pay Nothing Unless We Win." What these advertisements—and many fee agreements—don't mention is that clients are often responsible for expenses, such as deposition transcripts and filing fees, regardless of whether they win or lose.

Providing actual sample agreements in the Model Rules would have prevented future disputes and harm to the legal consumer. But so far, neither the states nor the ABA have offered this guidance in their codes.

Until they do, clients need to make sure that their attorney's written contract covers both the lawyer's fees and his terms of employment, including an indication of whether the attorney is charging a flat fee or willing to do the work on a contingency basis, an estimate of the expenses and an explanation of how often itemized bills will be sent to the client and when payments will be due. The agreement should also contain a timetable, including when each stage of work will be complete, a discussion of how attorney-client disputes will be resolved, and a description of what the lawyer and client are each responsible for doing.

It's a shame that clients are forced to take matters into their own hands while states postpone necessary revisions to their attorney ethics rules or blindly comply with the ABA's recommendations. For there to be a positive change in the legal profession and its relationship with legal consumers, individual state bars must demonstrate leadership by requiring written fee agreements and providing clear guidelines. After five years of hemming and hawing, isn't it about time?

* Suzanne M. Blonder is associate counsel with HALT — An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform. HALT is a non-profit public interest group dedicated to expanding access and increasing accountability in the civil justice system. www.halt.org