Client hires Attorney 1 to represent her in a civil fraud case on an hourly fee basis that we will assume is reasonable. There is a valid written fee agreement. As the case nears trial, Client becomes concerned about Attorney 1's lack of trial experience, and enters into a separate, written contingent fee agreement with Attorney 2 to serve as co-counsel on the matter. Further assume that the contingent fee agreement would also be considered reasonable standing alone. However, neither fee agreement references the other. Both attorneys seem fine with the arrangement, try the case together, and obtain a sizeable verdict in favor of Client. However, after the trial, a dispute arises between Client and Attorney 2 regarding calculation of the contingent fee.
Was this a "fee sharing" arrangement for purposes of Model Rule 1.5(e), or in my case California RPC 2-200 requiring a separate writing and informed client consent?