9 N.J.L. 218
January 31, 2000
159 N.J.L.J. 454
January 31, 2000
OPINION 687
Drawing Upon and Disbursing Funds
Received at Real Estate Closings in
the Form of Negotiable Instruments
other than Cashier's or Teller's Checks
The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics has been asked
whether negotiable instruments designated by certain financial
institutions as "official checks", and received by attorneys in
connection with real estate closings, may permissibly be drawn upon
and disbursed immediately upon deposit. The inquiry necessitates
review of Opinion 454, 105 N.J.L.J. 441 (1980) and the public
policy supporting its holding, to decide whether an extension of
Opinion 454 is warranted to cover these additional instruments
expressly. We conclude that it is not.
Ordinarily, clients' funds may not be disbursed from an
attorney's trust account until they have been "collected", meaning
that the checks have cleared, the funds have been credited to the
attorney's trust account, and they are immediately available.
Disbursement of funds not collected and available is an extremely
serious ethical matter. See R. 1:21-6(1)(2) (approved financial
institutions shall file with the Office of Attorney Ethics a report
"in the event any properly payable attorney trust instrument is
presented against insufficient funds, irrespective of whether the
instrument is honored[.]"). Where the funds of several clients are
kept in one account, the disbursal of funds prior to collection may
result in the improper disbursal of other clients' funds. See,
e.g., Matter of Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21 (1985) (discipline
imposed for issuance of checks against uncollected funds).
In Opinion 454, supra, 105 N.J.L.J. 441, the Committee
examined the practice of immediately drawing upon funds received at
real estate closings, observing it was "one of long standing...
probably universal use not only in New Jersey but elsewhere."
Ibid. Because the practice was so widespread in title closings,
the Committee realized that "to condemn it as unethical may lead to
severe disruption in the handling of title closings and other
matters." Ibid. Therefore, the Committee approved such immediate
disbursements when the funds deposited were in the form of "bank,
cashier's or certified checks," in order to avoid disruptions in
title closings and in the interest of accommodating all clients."
We did so because "[s]uch checks are the obligations of the bank
and not simply of a private party. Drawing immediately upon their
deposit entails a minimal risk."
It was with great reluctance, however, that the Committee
approved this very limited exception to the rule that trust account
checks be drawn on collected funds. The Committee recognized the
practice "has the effect of drawing on unsegregated trust funds of
all clients for the benefit of a particular client whose matter is
closing." Ibid. The Committee concluded the "justification for what
would otherwise be an unauthorized invasion of trust funds consists
of the almost non-existent risk that such bank, certified or
cashier's checks will not clear, along with the overriding
commercial need of all clients that such a practice be continued."
Ibid.
The Committee made informal inquiry into the practices of
several financial institutions with regard to "official checks."
This inquiry revealed that bank practices vary significantly as to
when checks drawn by other banks were credited, what they were
called and what they signified. The term "official check," unlike
"cashier's check" (a check drawn by a bank on itself), or "teller's
check" (a check drawn by a bank on another bank, or payable through
another bank), does not appear in any New Jersey statute, or have
any settled legal definition. Informal inquiry also revealed that
other terms, such as "bank check", are also used by some
institutions. The Federal Reserve Board, in its regulations
concerning next day availability of funds, recognizes only teller's
checks and cashier's checks, although it apparently recognizes some
forms of official checks as teller's checks. Nor is there a
consistent, universal practice as to when funds from such checks
actually are made available.
Unlike the situation in Opinion 454, therefore, there is not
a single, universally recognized definition of "official check."
Consequently, it is not possible to issue a ruling of general
application endorsing or barring disbursement from deposits of such
checks, or to give blanket approval to instruments which bear the
name "official checks." Nor is it practical for this Committee to
examine individually each new variation of negotiable instrument
which may be developed by banking institutions. Rather, building
upon our analysis in Opinion 454, our appropriate role is to
clarify the principles which must guide private attorneys as they
judge whether it is ethically permissible to disburse based upon
deposited funds. Ultimately it is the actual substance of the
instrument, not its label, which must control.
To be permissible, such immediate disbursal of a negotiable
instrument must be the virtual equivalent of collected funds.
Immediate disbursement can take place only in the following
circumstances:
(1) The check must be drawn by a licensed banking institution
on itself or another such banking institution.
(2) The attorney must ascertain that the funds from the check
will be made available by the depository bank no later
than the next business day after the day of deposit.
We also emphasize and make explicit one additional limitation
on this already very limited exception to the general rule that
trust account disbursements may be made only from collected funds.
Before making any disbursement on the deposited funds prior to the
time they actually become available, the attorney must determine
that the contemplated disbursements related to the deposited funds,
taken together with all other actual and reasonably anticipated
disbursements during the period prior to such actual availability,
will not exceed the total funds that the attorney's trust account
drawee bank will make available during that period.