[1] A lawyer should hold property of others with the care required of a professional fiduciary. Securities should be kept in a safe deposit box, except when some other form of safekeeping is warranted by special circumstances. All property that is the property of clients or third persons should be kept separate from the lawyer’s business and personal property and, if monies, in one or more trust accounts maintained with financial institutions meeting the requirements of this rule. This rule, among other things, sets forth the longstanding prohibitions of the misappropriation of entrusted funds and the commingling of entrusted funds with the lawyer’s property. This rule also requires that a lawyer safeguard “other property” of clients, which may include client files. For guidance concerning the disposition of closed client files, see D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion No. 283. [2] Paragraph
(a) of Rule 1.15 requires lawyers to keep "[c]omplete records of [client] funds and property. . . ." The D.C. Court of Appeals addressed the meaning of "complete records" in In re Clower, 831 A.2d 1030, 1034 (D.C. 2003): "The Rules of Professional Conduct should be interpreted with reference to their purposes. The purpose of maintaining 'complete records' is so that the documentary record itself tells the full story of how the attorney handled client or third-party funds and whether the attorney complied with his fiduciary obligation that client or third-party funds not be misappropriated or commingled. Financial records are complete only when documents sufficient to demonstrate an attorney's compliance with his ethical duties are maintained. The reason for requiring complete records is so that any audit of the attorney's handling of client funds by Disciplinary Counsel can be completed even if the attorney or the client, or both, are not available." Rule 1.15 requires that lawyers maintain records such that ownership or any other question about client funds can be answered without assistance from the lawyer or the lawyer's clients. The precise records that achieve this result obviously can vary, but lawyers may wish to look for guidance on records from the 2010 ABA Model Rules For Client Trust Account Records. [3] Paragraph
(a) concerns trust funds arising from “a representation.” The obligations of a lawyer under this rule are independent of those arising from activity other than rendering legal services. For example, a lawyer who serves as an escrow agent is governed by the applicable law relating to fiduciaries even though the lawyer does not render legal services in the transaction. Separate trust accounts may be warranted when administering estate monies or acting in similar fiduciary capacities. [4] Paragraph
(b) mandates where trust deposits shall be held and further mandates participation in the District of Columbia’s IOLTA program. This paragraph is intended to reach every lawyer who is admitted in this jurisdiction regardless of where the lawyer practices, unless a stated exception applies. Thus, a lawyer should follow the contrary mandates of a tribunal regarding deposits that are subject to that tribunal’s oversight. Similarly, if the lawyer principally practices in a foreign jurisdiction in which the lawyer is also licensed, and the lawyer maintains trust accounts compliant with that foreign jurisdiction’s trust accounting rules, the lawyer may deposit trust funds to an approved depository or to a banking institution acceptable to that foreign jurisdiction. Finally, a lawyer is not obligated to participate in the District of Columbia IOLTA program if the lawyer is participating in, and compliant with, the IOLTA program in the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed and principally practices. IOLTA programs are known by different names or acronyms in some jurisdictions; this rule and its exceptions apply to all such programs, however named. This rule anticipates that a law firm with lawyers admitted to practice in the District of Columbia may be obligated to maintain accounts compliant with the IOLTA rules of other jurisdictions where firm lawyers principally practice. A lawyer who is not participating in the IOLTA program of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices because the lawyer has exercised a right to opt out of, or not to opt into, the jurisdiction’s IOLTA program, or because the jurisdiction does not have an IOLTA program, shall not thereby be excused from participating in the District of Columbia’s IOLTA program. To the extent paragraph
(b) does not resolve a multi-jurisdictional conflict, see Rule 8.5. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit the power of any tribunal to direct a lawyer in connection with a pending matter, including a lawyer who is admitted pro hac vice, to hold trust funds as may be directed by that tribunal. For a list of approved depositories and additional information regarding DC IOLTA program compliance, see Rule XI, Section 20, of the Rules Governing the District of Columbia Bar, and the D.C. Bar Foundation’s website www.dcbarfoundation.org [5] The exception to Rule 1.15
(b) requires a lawyer to make a good faith determination of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices. The phrase “principally practices” refers to the conduct of an individual lawyer, not to the principal place of practice of his or her law firm (which might yield a different result for a lawyer with partners). For purposes of this rule, an individual lawyer principally practices in the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed and generates the clear majority of his or her income. If there is no such jurisdiction, then a lawyer should identify the physical location of the office where the lawyer devotes the largest portion of his or her time. In any event, the initial good faith determination of where the lawyer principally practices should be changed only if the lawyer’s circumstances change significantly and the change is expected to continue indefinitely. [6] The determination, under paragraph (b), whether trust funds are not expected to earn income in excess of costs, rests in the sound judgment of the lawyer. The lawyer should review trust practices at reasonable intervals to determine whether circumstances require further action with respect to the funds of any client or third party. Because paragraph
(b) is a lawyer–specific obligation, this rule anticipates that a law firm may be obligated to maintain accounts compliant with the IOLTA rules of other jurisdictions, to the extent the lawyers in that firm do not all principally practice in the District of Columbia. [7] Paragraphs
(c) and
(d) recognize that lawyers often receive funds from third parties from which the lawyer’s fee will be paid. The lawyer is not required to remit to the client funds that the lawyer reasonably believes represent fees owed. However, a lawyer may not hold funds to coerce a client into accepting the lawyer’s contention. The disputed portion of the funds should be kept in trust and the lawyer should suggest means for prompt resolution of the dispute, such as arbitration. The undisputed portion of the funds should be promptly distributed. [8] Third parties, such as a client’s creditors, may have just claims against funds or other property in a lawyer’s custody. A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect such third-party claims against wrongful interference by the client, and accordingly may refuse to surrender the property to the client. However, a lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third party. See D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 293. [9] Paragraph
(e) permits advances against unearned fees and unincurred costs to be treated as either the property of the client or the property of the lawyer, but absent informed consent by the client to a different arrangement, the rule’s default position is that such advances be treated as the property of the client, subject to the restrictions provided in paragraph (a). In any case, at the termination of an engagement, advances against fees that have not been incurred must be returned to the client as provided in Rule 1.16(d). For the definition of “informed consent,” see Rule 1.0(e). [10] With respect to property that constitutes evidence, such as the instruments or proceeds of crime, see Rule 3.4(a). This site uses essential cookies that include tracking technologies to assist with navigation and your ability to provide feedback, analyze your use of our products and services, assist with our promotional and marketing efforts, and provide content from third parties. View Privacy Policy Accept
