When an attorney sues a client for attorney fees under an express or implied in fact contract for non-contingent fees that satisfies the requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code 6148, the attorney is entitled to the agreed fees even if they exceed a “reasonable fee” set by the lodestar plus multiplier method–so long as the fees and fee agreement are not unconscionable and the attorney performed the contract with reasonable skill and adherence to the implied covenant of good faith. In assessing such a fee claim, the court should follow the standards set by the State Bar’s Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration Arbitration Advisory 1993-02. First, the court must determine whether the agreed fee is unconscionable (not merely more than reasonable), taking into account the factors listed in Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.5. Second, if not unconscionable, the court should review to determine whether the lawyer’s performance was reasonable, whether the attorney used reasonable care, skill and diligence in performing the duties required of the attorney under the contract, that unnecessary, duplicative or unproductive time is not charged to the client, and that the attorney has not performed services that were required as a result of the attorney’s negligence or some lack of ordinary skill or diligence. If the agreed fee passes those tests, it should be awarded to the attorney.