Link to Original WordPerfect Document

                                         105 N.J.L.J. 441
                                        May 15, 1980


Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court


Attorney's Trust Account - Immediate
Drawing Upon Depositing Client's Check

    We are asked whether it is ethical for an attorney to deposit funds belonging to a client in the attorney's trust account and to make immediate disbursement from this fund on behalf of the client. This practice usually arises in the context of a title closing, but there are, of course, many other circumstances in which this procedure is followed.
    R. 1:21-6(a)(1) and DR 9-102 require that an attorney maintain a separate account for funds of his clients entrusted to his care. He must maintain an appropriate book in which the funds belonging to each client are separately identified. It goes without saying that the funds deposited for a particular client must be used for the benefit of that client and for no other purpose. Many attorneys have substantial sums in their trust account at all times, sums which belong to several clients. Some part of these monies are "collected funds," i.e. funds which represent checks deposited in the account which have had ample time to clear and have thus been properly credited to the attorney's trust account. Depending usually on the distance the drawee bank is from the attorney's bank, it may take from five to ten business days for a check to clear, or from one to two calendar weeks. It is obvious, therefore, that a check drawn on the attorney's trust account for client A the same day client A's check is deposited in this account
is drawn on funds which belong to other clients of the attorney.
    We are aware of the fact that the foregoing practice is one of long standing in probably universal use not only in New Jersey but elsewhere. We also believe that most attorneys who follow this practice do so only where the checks involved are bank, cashier's or certified checks. Because this procedure is so widespread in title closings, to condemn it as unethical may lead to severe disruption in the handling of title closings and other matters. We suggest first, however, that there are other ways to handle these closings, none of which is entirely satisfactory. Three possibilities come to mind: (1) escrow closings in which no funds are disbursed and no closing completed until all funds have cleared; (2) pre-arrangement by the attorneys involved so that the necessary closing figures are known far enough in advance for the parties to provide funds in such a manner as to obviate the necessity of using the trust account (undoubtedly this would require cooperation of the bank mortgagee which may be asked to provide mortgage funds in several checks); (3) establishment of an account by the attorney of his own funds which can be used to accommodate a client when there is no other solution. Recognizing the problems which would arise were the present practice disapproved in its entirety, it is our opinion that where one of the foregoing solutions is not feasible, the use of bank certified or cashier's checks should be permitted to avoid disruptions in title closings and in the interest of accommodating all clients. Such checks are the obligations of the bank and not simply of a private party. Drawing immediately upon their deposit entails a minimal risk.
    The practice which is sanctioned by this opinion has the effort of drawing on unsegregated trust funds of all clients for the benefit of a particular client whose matter is closing. The reduction thus resulting in available trust funds is eliminated shortly thereafter when the bank, certified or cashier's check clears. The justification for what would otherwise be an unauthorized invasion of trust funds consists of the almost nonexistent 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. Because the practice is so well known and widespread it is fair to assume that clients have implicitly consented to the negligible risk involved in drawing against such checks which have not yet cleared. Of course, any client who explicitly requests that trust funds deposited for his benefit not be subjected to the practice is entitled to have his funds segregated. A consequence of such segregation would be that that client, if involved in a transaction where closing depends upon the issuance of trust checks that have not yet cleared, would have to take special arrangements similar to one of those suggested earlier in this opinion. In other words, a client who does not want to take the negligible risks involved in the unsegregated fund will not receive the substantial benefit of the practice discussed in this opinion. Approval of the practice referred to herein is limited strictly to real estate or commercial closing transactions representing the consummation of an agreement resulting in transfers of property or interests in property whether they be real estate, personal property or a combination of both, including sales of businesses where it is either essentially or commercially desirable that trustee checks be issued against certified, bank or cashier's checks that have not cleared. Drawing on trust funds for other purposes, such as the disbursement of the settlement proceeds of a negligence case, regardless of whether certified, cashier's or bank checks have been deposited but have not yet cleared, is not proper.
    We wish to make it clear that the practice we are approving relates only to the use of bank, cashier's or certified checks. We consider the practice of drawing against personal checks to cover miscellaneous items at closing or for any other purpose, regardless of the amount, to be unethical. While these amounts may be small in relation to the size of some trust accounts, the same amount may be large in relation to other trust accounts. Drawing against such personal checks creates a substantial risk of loss of trust funds deposited in the account for other clients, a risk not in any way justified by necessities of the situation. Accordingly, such practice is disapproved.

* * *

This archive is a service of Rutgers University School of Law - Camden