Ethical Grounds

The Unofficial Blog of Vermont's Bar Counsel

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • 50 Resolutions
  • Administrative Order 9
  • CLE: The Garage Videos
  • Family & Friends
  • HELP: Wellness & Well-Being Resources
  • Stories from a Bar
  • The #fiveforfriday Quizzes
  • The Professional Responsibility Program
  • The Wellness Wednesday Posts
  • This Week’s Posts
  • Trust Accounting & Fees
  • Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Was That Wrong?
  • Wellness & Well-Being Videos

Trust Account Management

Monday Morning Answers #268

November 21, 2022November 21, 2022Michael 2 Comments

Happy blustery Monday!

Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll. 

Honor Roll

  • Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
  • Evan Barquist, Montroll, Oettinger & Barquist
  • Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
  • Alberto Bernabe, Professor, UIC School of Law
  • Andrew Delaney, Martin Delaney & Ricci
  • Cary Dube, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
  • Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank + Collins
  • Robert Grundstein
  • Tammy Heffernan, Attorney at Law
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett/Hoyt
  • Keith Kasper, McCormick Fitzpatrick Kasper & Burchard
  • Jeanne Kennedy, Mother (of the) Blogger, JB Kennedy Associates
  • Deb Kirchwey, Law Office of Deborah Kirchwey
  • John T. Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, Sheehan
  • Pam Loginsky, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Pierce County (WA)
  • Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
  • Hal Miller, First American Title, Hawaii State Counsel
  • Keith Roberts, Darby Kolter & Roberts
  • Honorable John Valente, Vermont Superior Judge
  • Jason Warfield, J.D.
  • Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor

Answers

Question 1

Below, I’ve listed 3 carve outs in which a rule permits a lawyer to do something that the same rule otherwise prohibits.  Which of the 7 Cs of legal ethics does the rule govern?

  • To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.
  • To establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved.
  • To respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client.

Confidentiality. This is the so-called “self-defense” exception that appears in V.R.Pr.C. 1.6(c)(3).

Question 2

There is a rule that sets out a lawyer’s duties when, in connection with a representation, the lawyer is in possession of funds in which both the “client and a third person claim interests.”  The rule requires the lawyer to promptly distribute all portions that are not in dispute and to keep the remainder “separate” until the dispute is resolved.

Does the rule apply when the lawyer is the “third person” who claims an interest in the funds?

  • A.  Yes.
  • B.  No.  In this situation, the rule requires the lawyer to disburse the entire portion to the client and then seek to recover the lawyer’s share through “appropriate judicial process.”

V.R.Pr.C. 1.15(e) applies “when in the course of the representation a lawyer is in possession of property in which two or more persons (one of whom maybe the lawyer) claim interests.” (emphasis added).  The rule does not require a lawyer to remit the portion that the lawyer claims and then seek to recover it later via the judicial process.

Question 3

Here’s an excerpt from a comment to one of the rules.  Fill in the blank.

“The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer servicing as both advocate and ____________.  The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice the party’s rights in the litigation.”

WITNESS.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 3.7, Comment [2].

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then responded “we just adopted a new rule that applies to your situation. It allows you to disclose otherwise confidential information in order to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, as long as the information you reveal won’t compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice your clients”

Given my response, what is Lawyer’s situation? 

  • A.  Lawyer is changing jobs.
  • B.  Lawyer is changing malpractice carriers.
  • C.  Lawyer received a jury summons.
  • D.  Lawyer was selected for a trust account audit by a CPA firm that does business in Vermont

This is new rule V.R.Pr.C. 1.6(c)(5).  Comments 16 and 17 outline the rule.

Question 5

One of the jobs in a U.S. President’s administration is that of Pardon Attorney. I’m not positive, but I think that the lawyer who serves as Pardon Attorney must be very busy this time of year. 

According to legend, President Lincoln granted clemency one November, as did President Kennedy 100 years later.  However, it wasn’t until 1989 that President Bush began an official tradition that continues to this day. Several years ago, President Obama spoke eloquently:

“And it is my great privilege — well, it’s my privilege — actually, let’s just say it’s my job — to grant them clemency this afternoon. As I do, I want to take a moment to recognize the brave [others] who weren’t so lucky, who didn’t get to ride the gravy train to freedom — who met their fate with courage and sacrifice — and proved that they weren’t chicken.”

According to media reports from earlier this week, President Biden is likely to issue pardons next week to two North Carolinians. Assuming that President Biden asks the Pardon Attorney for advice, competent advice will include understanding who is being considered for pardons.

Who is up for presidential pardons this time of year?

Turkeys.  As reported here by the New York Post, two will be pardoned today.

Monday Morning Honors #263

October 17, 2022Michael

Happy Monday! 

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll

  • Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
  • Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
  • Beth DeBernardi, Administrative Law Judge, Vermont Department of Labor
  • Andrew Delaney, Martin Delaney & Ricci
  • Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank + Collins
  • Robert Grundstein
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett/Hoyt
  • Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associations, Mother of the Blogger
  • John T. Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, Sheehan
  • Pam Loginsky, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Pierce County, Tacoma, WA
  • Pam Marsh, Marsh & Wagner
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
  • Jeffrey Messina, Messina Law
  • Hal Miller, Hawaii Agency Underwriting Counsel, First American Title Insurance
  • Herb Ogden, Esq.
  • Keith Roberts, Darby Kolter & Roberts
  • Nikki Stevens, Firm Administrator, Langrock Sperry & Wool
  • Emily Tredeau, Supervising Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Office
  • Jason Warfield, J.D.

Answers

Question 1

If the Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to receive a client’s agreement (or informed consent) to do something in writing, does an email from the client satisfy the rule?

  • A. Yes. V.R.Pr.C. 1.0(n) “‘Writing’’ or ‘’written’ denotes a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, audio or videorecording and e-mail.”
  • B. No.

Question 2

Here’s an excerpt from a comment to one of the rules.  The same word goes in each blank.  What word?  Action by the lawyer:

“is not FRIVOLOUSeven though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is FRIVOLOUS, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

See, V.R.Pr.C. 3.1, Cmt. [2].

Question 3

At a CLE, what topic am I most likely addressing when I discuss “3-way reconciliation.”

  • A. Conflicts that can arise when a lawyer represents both buyer & sellers in the same transaction.
  • B. The rule that applies to lawyers who serve as “third party neutrals.”
  • C. Ethics issues that arise when the prosecution, the lawyer for the defendant, and a victim’s advocate negotiate resolution of a criminal matter.
  • D. Trust Account Management. See, this blog post.

Question 4

I often caution lawyers against “noisy withdrawal.”  Which of the 7Cs of Legal Ethics is most closely associated with “noisy” withdrawal?

CONFIDENTIALITY.  See, this blog post.

Question 5

In 1984, Vanity Fair asked a mega-famous artist to create an image of a mega-famous musician. The magazine gave the artist a photograph to use as a reference.  The artist used the photograph to create images of the musician in the same style as images the artist had previously created of Marilyn Monroe, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Mao Zedong. 

In 2016, Vanity Fair ran one of the mega-famous artist’s images of the mega-famous musician on the cover of an issue commemorating the musician’s death. This resulted in a copyright dispute involving the artist’s foundation and the photographer who took the original photograph that had served as a reference for the artist’s images.

This week, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the matter. According to multiple news outlets, the argument included a light moment that prompted much laughter. Justice Thomas began a question by indicating that he was fan of the musician in the 80s.  Justice Kagan asked, “but no longer?”  Justice Thomas replied, “Only on Thursdays.”

Name the artist and the musician.

Andy Warhol & Prince.  Among others, The Hollywood Reporter, Insurance Journal, and NPR covered the story.

Trust Accounting in a Nutshell

September 14, 2022September 14, 2022Michael

The theme of yesterday’s post was that “back to school” season means that it’s time to get “back to basics.” In it, I shared thoughts on competence, communication, confidentiality, conflicts, and candor.

Today, it’s time to get back to the basics of trust accounting.  I know (all too well) that it’s nobody’s favorite topic.  Still, it’s important and it’s my job.

I want to be very clear about why trust accounting is important.

  1. The rules are meant to ensure that lawyers act competently to safeguard client funds.  I’m not sure there’s a greater threat to the public’s confidence in the profession’s ability (and privilege) to self-regulate than would be posed by an abdication of this duty.
  2. Understanding the rules is good way to avoid a disciplinary sanction.

I wanted this post to be long enough without being too long.  So, I decided to present the information in a syllabus, as if we are beginning a semester-long course.  Alas, WordPress didn’t like the outline’s formatting. 

Here it is:

Trust Accounting in a NutshellDownload

Feel free to download and share.

Finally, my original plan was to present the syllabus/nutshell via video.  Not just any video, but a video recorded on my deck and during which I paused during the transitions to display and taste the herbs & spices that I’m growing out there. 

Alas, I’ve been informed that nothing I’m growing is a spice.  As such, so much for the idea of “spicing up” trust accounting with a video in which my “spices” were special guests.

Still, I decided to record from the deck anyway.  Midway thru, I got caught in a rainstorm.  So, the outline will have to do.

The best laid plans.

As always, let’s be careful out there.

Timely Reconciliation Continues To Protect Vermont Law Firms Against Trust Account Fraud

August 2, 2022August 2, 2022Michael 1 Comment

Hello.  Long time no blogging.  I’d write that I’m glad to be back, but this isn’t one of the posts. Rather, I’m here to warn about trust account fraud and emphasize the role that timely reconciliation plays in protecting against it.

Last winter, I posted about two instances in which timely reconciliation had alerted firms to trust account fraud.  The first involved fraudulent checks.  The second involved unauthorized ACH disbursements made from a trust account.

The former has resurfaced.  If it ever left.

A Chittenden County lawyer contacted me this morning.  Reconciling the firm’s pooled interest-bearing trust account (IOLTA), the bookkeeper noticed multiple checks that looked exactly like the firm’s trust account checks, bore the proper account and routing numbers, and even included the bookkeeper’s signature. However, the bookkeeper knew that she had not issued checks to the named payees. The checks were fraudulent. Somehow and somewhere, someone accessed one of the firm’s actual checks, generated fraudulent facsimiles thereof, and expertly changed the payee.  Upon being alerted to the fraud, the firm’s bank made good on the funds.

How the fraud occurred remains unclear.  Here’s what’s clear.

Yes, trust account fraud is unrelenting and increasingly sophisticated. But regular and timely reconciliation can reveal fraud and help lawyers to safeguard funds that would otherwise be gone from trust.

In February’s post about the firm that discovered unauthorized ACH disbursements, I noted that the firm had “moved to a version of ‘positive pay.’”  I encouraged others to consider doing the same. On the CLE circuit this spring, I learned that many have.  You can read more about “positive pay” here.   (Note: my sense is that most Vermont firms use “reverse positive pay.”)  Anyhow, here’s an excerpt from February’s post that bears repeating:

“Nothing in this post should be read as me stating that the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers and law firms to enroll in a “positive pay” program.  However, it’s worth considering.  As I mentioned in A Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility to Learn to Identify Common Trust Account Scams, if trust funds go missing, the question will be whether the lawyer took reasonable steps to safeguard them.  I could envision a disciplinary prosecutor asking, “did you ever check whether your bank offers a ‘positive pay’ or a similar service?”

As always, let’s be careful out there.

fraud

Trust Accounting Resources

Videos

  • Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

Blog Posts

  • Vermont’s rules on fees labeled “non-refundable” or “earned upon receipt”
  • Beware the severance payment scam
  • Reconciliation (again) is a good thing! Plus, a tip to protect against check fraud
  • Timely reconciliation alerts firm to trust account fraud
  • A lawyer’s professional responsibility to learn to identify common trust account scams
  • Lawyers aren’t Kramer: when it comes to trust accounting, there are no excuses
  • Back to (trust account) school
  • Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps
  • Taylor Swift & Trust Accounts: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Ya
  • Disbursing without Collected Funds
  • Mobile Payments & Legal Fees
  • Trust Accounting Tips
  • Trust Account Scams Continue
  • & Jack Torrance: an overview of the trust account rules
  • Third-Party Claims against Client Funds
  • With trust accounts, verify
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Nonrefundable fees
  • Teddy KGB on prompt notification and delivery
  • When a third-party asserts an “interest” in funds held in trust
  • Trust Account Tuesday: (generally) don’t disburse absent collected funds.
  • Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Don’t Commingle
  • Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
  • Trust Account Scams: Change in Wire Instructions? CAUTION!!!!
  • Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

Beware the “severance payment” trust account scam.

March 2, 2022March 2, 2022Michael 3 Comments

Today I learned that a Vermont law firm was targeted this week in the so-called “severance agreement scam.”  It was the first I’d heard of the scam happening here.  Fortunately, a non-attorney employee was suspicious of the transaction. As a result, before disbursing, the firm was able to verify that a check that had been deposited to the trust account was fraudulent.  Crisis averted.

Here’s how the scam works.

Someone contacts a lawyer claiming to be owed a severance payment by a former employer. Once the lawyer is involved, the “former employer” sends a check.  The check is fraudulent.  Alas, by the time the unsuspecting lawyer’s bank notifies the lawyer that the check was fraudulent, the lawyer has already disbursed funds that belong to other (and actual) clients.

Stewart Sutton practices law in Maryland.[1]  In 2019, Attorney Sutton outlined the scam.  The Virginia State Bar issued this warning the same year.

While relatively new, the “severance payment scam” is but a variation on an old theme.

A few weeks ago I posted A Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility to Identify Common Trust Account Scams. In it, I referred to North Carolina State Bar 2021 Formal Ethics Opinion 2.  The advisory opinion addresses a common scam:

  • Lawyer is contacted by client who is owed a debt.
  • Client reports that debtor will not pay.
  • Lawyer agrees to represent Client.
  • Debtor (suddenly) can’t send a check to Lawyer fast enough.
  • Client instructs Lawyer to deposit the check, keep Lawyer’s fee, and wire the balance.
  • Lawyer follows Client’s instructions.
  • Later, it becomes apparent that Debtor’s check was fraudulent.
  • Often, Lawyer has now wired to Client funds that belong to other clients.

Scams of this nature most often involve an out-of-state client who (a) claims to be owed money by a person or business located in Vermont; and (b) only communicates with the Vermont lawyer by e-mail .  I’m aware of it playing out in different contexts, including:

  • Person or business claims to have delivered goods to a person or company that won’t pay.
  • Deployed member of the military claims that ex-spouse sold the marital home and refuses to share the proceeds.

We can now add:

  • Person claims to be owed “severance payment” by former employer who won’t pay.

As always, be careful out there.

scam

[1] I don’t know Attorney Sutton and have never communicated with him.  But I’m happy to learn from his profile that he’s a member of Red Sox Nation.

Related Videos & Posts

Videos

  •  Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

Blog Posts

  • Reconciliation (again!) is a good thing. Plus, a tip to protect against check fraud.
  • A lawyer’s professional responsibility to identify common trust account scams
  • Lawyers aren’t Kramer: when it comes to trust accounting, there are no excuses
  • Back to (trust account) school
  • Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps
  • Taylor Swift & Trust Accounts: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Ya
  • Disbursing without Collected Funds
  • Mobile Payments & Legal Fees
  • Trust Accounting Tips
  • Trust Account Scams Continue
  • I. & Jack Torrance: an overview of the trust account rules
  • Third-Party Claims against Client Funds
  • With trust accounts, verify
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Nonrefundable fees
  • Teddy KGB on prompt notification and delivery
  • When a third-party asserts an “interest” in funds held in trust
  • Trust Account Tuesday: (generally) don’t disburse absent collected funds.
  • Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Don’t Commingle
  • Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
  • Trust Account Scams: Change in Wire Instructions? CAUTION!!!!
  • Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

 

Again, reconciliation is a good thing! (And a tip to protect against check fraud.)

February 18, 2022Michael 4 Comments

A few weeks ago I posted Timely Reconciliation Alerts Firm To Trust Account Fraud.

Well, it has happened again.

And, this time, the firm that shared its story also shared a tip to prevent check fraud.

fraud

A lawyer called yesterday to discuss a trust account issue.  In the process of a daily reconciliation, the firm noticed an unauthorized ACH disbursement from trust. Someone had accessed the trust account to pay their credit card.  The firm is working with law enforcement to identify the culprit and has confirmed that it was not an employee, client, former client, or anyone to whom the firm delivered funds on behalf of a client.  The most likely explanation is the simplest: someone came across one of the firm’s trust account checks and wrote down or took a picture of the account and routing numbers.  Fortunately, the daily reconciliation alerted the firm to the problem.  The bank refunded the money, and the firm has taken additional steps to safeguard client funds and to protect against check fraud.

Among other things, the firm has moved to a version of “positive pay.” Every day, the bank sends the firm a list of checks that have been presented against the trust account.  The firm approves or disapproves each.  You can read more about “positive pay” in this post from Investopedia.  Note: the firm uses “reverse positive pay.”

Nothing in this post should be read as me stating that the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers and law firms to enroll in a “positive pay” program.  However, it’s worth considering.  As I mentioned in A Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility to Learn to Identify Common Trust Account Scams, if trust funds go missing, the question will be whether the lawyer took reasonable steps to safeguard them.  I could envision a disciplinary prosecutor asking, “did you ever check whether your bank offers a ‘positive pay’ or a similar service?”

Personally, I’d not want my answer to be “a what?”

As always, let’s be careful out there.

Timely Reconciliation Alerts Firm to Trust Account Fraud

January 11, 2022Michael 1 Comment

In Vermont, client trust accounts must be reconciled no less than monthly.  In addition to being required by the rules, timely reconciliation can help to alert a lawyer or law firm to trust account fraud.

Fraud

Last Friday, an employee of a Vermont law firm reconciled recent trust account activity.  Reviewing digital copies of checks presented against the account, the employee discovered three fraudulent checks.

I’ve seen images of the fraudulent checks.  They look almost exactly like the firm’s real checks. Each includes the firm name, address, account number, routing number, and a forged signature of one of the firm’s partners.

The employee caught the fraud because two of the checks were duplicates.  That is, each was the same number as a legitimate check that the firm had issued.  The third bore a number that was well outside the range of the firm’s current checks.

Each fraudulent check had been negotiated using a mobile banking app.  The mobile deposits were to accounts at a different bank than where the firm’s trust account is maintained.  Many thousands of dollars were stolen. It seems that the fraud occurred outside the United States as two of the fraudulent checks were dated using the “dd/mm/yy” construct.

The law firm immediately notified its bank and law enforcement.  Funds that remained in trust were transferred to another account.  A few legitimate checks remain outstanding. The bank agreed not to honor them without contacting the firm for approval.  As of last night, it appears that the banks are going to make good on the funds fraudulently obtained from the firm’s trust account. The firm and the bank are discussing whether the bank can make it so that the firm’s trust account checks cannot be negotiated electronically.

The situation shows the importance of timely reconciliation. The employee discovered the fraud within days of it happening.  It’s also an example of the importance of “actual” reconciliation.  Don’t just glance at the statement and conclude that the balance “looks about right.”  That is not reconciling.  An actual reconciliation includes reviewing each and every transaction on the account.

As always, be careful out there.

Related Material

Videos:

  • Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

Blog posts:

  • Back to (trust account) school
  • Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps
  • Taylor Swift & Trust Accounts: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Ya
  • Disbursing without Collected Funds
  • Mobile Payments & Legal Fees
  • Trust Accounting Tips
  • Trust Account Scams Continue
  • T.I. & Jack Torrance: an overview of the trust account rules
  • Third-Party Claims against Client Funds
  • With trust accounts, verify
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Nonrefundable fees
  • Teddy KGB on prompt notification and delivery
  • When a third-party asserts an “interest” in funds held in trust
  • Trust Account Tuesday: (generally) don’t disburse absent collected funds.
  • Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Don’t Commingle
  • Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
  • Trust Account Scams: Change in Wire Instructions? CAUTION!!!!
  • Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

Resources

  • The Professional Responsibility Program’s Guide to Managing Trust Accounts

 

Lawyers aren’t Kramer. When it comes to safeguarding client funds, there are no excuses.

November 10, 2021Michael 1 Comment

I will lead with the most important takeaway from today’s story: neither inexperience as an attorney nor unfamiliarity with the trust accounting rules will excuse the failure to safeguard client funds. For a refresher, I’ve included links to my posts and videos on trust accounting at the end of this post. Now, back to today’s story.

As many readers know, Was That Wrong? is a semi-regular column in which I use a Seinfeld episode to highlight conduct that we shouldn’t need a CLE to know to avoid. Today’s story qualifies. It also reminds of another episode: the one in which Kramer was fired from a job that he didn’t even have because it was almost like he had no business training at all.

Alas, when it comes to safeguarding client funds, there’s no training required to know the most basic notion: my client’s money isn’t my money.

Last week, a New York appellate court imposed an interim suspension in a matter in which a lawyer has been charged with mishandling client funds. The Legal Profession Blog reported the opinion. Here’s a summary of the facts.

  • Lawyer was admitted to practice law in 2004. After many years in a firm, Lawyer opened a solo shop.
  • Lawyer represented Seller in a real estate transaction. In January 2019, Buyer advanced an $18,000 down payment that Lawyer deposited into a client trust account. Over the next several months, Lawyer withdrew more than $6,000 of the down payment and used the funds to pay personal expenses.
  • In June 2019, Seller advanced $10,000 towards closing costs. Lawyer deposited the funds into the client trust account.
  • The transaction closed in October. Seller cleared just under $50,000. Lawyer deposited the proceeds into the client trust account.
  • About a month later, Lawyer paid $25,000 to Seller. Lawyer informed Seller that the balance would remain in trust until Lawyer received confirmation that various liens and taxes had been paid.
  • By June of 2020, had yet to pay Seller and only $3.78 belonging to Seller remained in trust. Lawyer had used more than $35,000 to pay personal expenses.
  • In September 2020 Lawyer borrowed enough money to pay just over $14,000 to Seller. Lawyer informed Seller that Lawyer was invoking his status as Seller’s power of attorney to withhold the balance pending Lawyer’s investigation into Seller’s tax liabilities associated with the sale.
  • Seller filed a disciplinary complaint against Lawyer.
  • In January 2021, Lawyer asked Seller to agree to withdraw the disciplinary complaint in exchange for payment.
  • In March 2021, Lawyer finally paid Seller.

Disciplinary prosecutors charged Lawyer with various violations and sought the immediate interim suspension of Lawyer’s law license pending resolution of the charges. At a hearing on the request, Lawyer’s arguments against an interim suspension included:

  • Lawyer had no background or training in real estate transactions.
  • Prior to opening his own office, Lawyer had never opened a trust account or had to manage client funds.
  • Lawyer received no trust account training in law school.
  • Lawyer never attended any trust accounting CLEs.
  • Lawyer had closed his office and taken a government job and, therefore, would not be handling client funds anymore.

The court wasn’t moved.  In the end, the court imposed the interim suspension.  The court’s order included this statement:

  • “While respondent cites to a lack of experience regarding the rules related to the maintenance of accounts holding client funds, he declined to familiarize himself with them at any time prior to or during his representation of the subject client.”

To me, Lawyer’s arguments are offensive not only to lawyers new to managing client trust accounts, but to anyone with a sense of right and wrong. Nobody needs law school, a CLE, or any sort of training to know that money held in trust for others is not to be used as one’s own.

End of story.

Trust Account Resources

My videos on trust accounting:

  • Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

My blog posts on trust accounting:

  • Back to (trust account) school
  • Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps
  • Taylor Swift & Trust Accounts: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Ya
  • Disbursing without Collected Funds
  • Mobile Payments & Legal Fees
  • Trust Accounting Tips
  • Trust Account Scams Continue
  • I. & Jack Torrance: an overview of the trust account rules
  • Third-Party Claims against Client Funds
  • With trust accounts, verify
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Nonrefundable fees
  • Teddy KGB on prompt notification and delivery
  • When a third-party asserts an “interest” in funds held in trust
  • Trust Account Tuesday: (generally) don’t disburse absent collected funds.
  • Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Don’t Commingle
  • Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
  • Trust Account Scams: Change in Wire Instructions? CAUTION!!!!
  • Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

 

Back to (trust account) school.

August 31, 2021Michael 2 Comments

Hi!

It’s been a bit since my last post.  Usually when I go on hiatus it’s because of blogger’s block.  Not this time.  For the past 10 days, I’ve been tied up with a special assignment.  That behind me, it’s good to be back.

And speaking of back . . . it’s back to school season.  Around this blog, that means it’s back to (trust account) school season.  And, as a reminder that the lessons aren’t in the abstract, I’m going to mention two decisions handed down earlier this year in which Vermont lawyers were publicly reprimanded for violating the trust accounting rules. 

sanctions

I’ll address the decisions in reverse order of issue. Why? Because the first is a stark reminder that failure to comply with the trust accounting rules can easily lead to a suspension.

PRB Decision 236 involved a sole practitioner whose practice focuses on residential real estate transactions. A disciplinary complaint resulted in Disciplinary Counsel conducting a compliance audit of the lawyer’s trust account.  The audit revealed that the account often went unreconciled and that to the extent that the lawyer maintained records, they were substandard. Among other things, the lack of regular reconciliation caused the lawyer to fail to account for numerous uncashed checks that had been issued against the trust account.   

In addition, the lawyer is a title insurance agent. For those of you who don’t know, lawyers who sell title insurance collect the premium at closing and deposit it into trust.  Following the closing, the lawyer/ conducts a title update so that a final policy can issue.  Then, the lawyer disburses both the title insurer’s share of the premium and the lawyer’s share.

Here, the lawyer wasn’t doing that.  Rather, the lawyer admitted that there were approximately 30 closings at which the lawyer had collected the title insurance premium but not issued a final  policy or disbursed the title insurance company’s share of the premium.  The former is bad because it’s neglect, the latter is bad because, in this situation, the title insurance company is no different than any other person who is entitled to funds that an attorney is holding in trust.

In the end, a hearing panel concluded that the lawyer violated:

  • the trust account record-keeping rules;
  • the rule that requires timely reconciliation of a trust account;

the rule that requires prompt disbursement of funds that belong to another; and,

  • the rule that requires lawyers to provide clients with prompt and diligent representation.

I’ve previously blogged on how the hearing panels and Supreme Court arrive at a disciplinary sanction.  In a nutshell, an analysis of several factors results in a presumptive sanction that can be modified up or down by certain aggravating and mitigating factors.

Here, the panel concluded that the presumptive sanction was a suspension of the lawyer’s law license.  However, the panel went on to conclude that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating and warranted the lesser sanction of a public reprimand.  Neither Disciplinary Counsel nor the lawyer appealed, and the Supreme Court issued an order adopting the hearing panel’s decision as its own.

The second decision is PRB Decision 235.  The case involved a lawyer at a small firm whose practice focused on estate planning and residential real estate.  A compliance audit of the firm’s trust accounts revealed problems associated with years of failing to reconcile the accounts.  Thus, accounting errors and uncashed checks went undetected. 

In the end, a hearing panel concluded that the presumptive sanction was a public reprimand.  The panel also found that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating, and that many of the problems with the firm’s trust accounting pre-dated the lawyer’s responsibility for the accounts.  Still, the panel opted against reducing the sanction from reprimand to admonition, noting that the lawyer “allowed those problems to languish and was directly responsible for repeated failures to conduct reconciliation and for failing to address and correct accounting errors that arose . . .”   Neither Disciplinary Counsel nor the lawyer appealed, and the Supreme Court issued an order adopting the panel’s decision as its own.

These opinions show that, as has been the case for years, the failure to mind the trust account will result in discipline.  For those of you interested going “back to (trust account) school,” see the resources below.

As always, let’s be careful out there.

PS: as I cut & pasted the links, I LMAO’d thinking about the person who recently told me that I don’t do enough on trust accounting.

Resources

  • The Professional Responsibility Program’s Guide to Managing Trust Accounts

My videos on trust accounting:

  • Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

My blog posts on trust accounting:

  • Safeguarding Client Funds: Tech Competence & Mobile Payment Apps
  • Taylor Swift & Trust Accounts: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Ya
  • Disbursing without Collected Funds
  • Mobile Payments & Legal Fees
  • Trust Accounting Tips
  • Trust Account Scams Continue
  • T.I. & Jack Torrance: an overview of the trust account rules
  • Third-Party Claims against Client Funds
  • With trust accounts, verify
  • Misappropriation: Don’t.
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Nonrefundable fees
  • Teddy KGB on prompt notification and delivery
  • When a third-party asserts an “interest” in funds held in trust
  • Trust Account Tuesday: (generally) don’t disburse absent collected funds.
  • Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements
  • Trust Account Tuesday: Don’t Commingle
  • Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
  • Trust Account Scams: Change in Wire Instructions? CAUTION!!!!
  • Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

The PRP’s tools to investigate & enforce compliance with the trust accounting rules.

February 18, 2021June 25, 2021Michael

Earlier today, I highlighted the basics of the trust accounting rules.  Now, part 2: an overview of the tools that the Professional Responsibility Program (PRP) uses to investigate and enforce compliance.

Compliance Reviews

Speaking of compliance, it’s apropos to begin with the most proactive of the enforcement tools: the compliance review.  By rule, lawyers and law firms must submit to a “compliance review of financial records, including trust and fiduciary accounts, by the Professional Responsibility Program’s Disciplinary Counsel.”

Disciplinary Counsel might request a compliance review in response to information gleaned while investigating a disciplinary complaint or an insufficient funds notice. In addition, a compliance review can be ordered even in the absence of indicia of a problem with the trust account.  Moreover, contrary to a popular colloquialism that’s existed ever since I started in the PRP in 1998, nothing in the rule requires a compliance review to be “random.”  Indeed, about 15 years ago, I was disciplinary counsel.  Following a series of high-profile defalcations by real estate lawyers who worked alone or in very small firms, I selected real estate lawyers who worked alone or in very small firms for all the compliance reviews that we could afford within that year’s budget.

Disciplinary Counsel and the Board have agreements with accounting firms throughout the state, each of which is experienced in examining a lawyer or law firm’s compliance with the record-keeping rules. As with any other investigation, depending on the results of the compliance review, Disciplinary Counsel can charge the lawyer with violating the rules, refer the lawyer for the non-disciplinary resolution of the trust accounting problems, or close the file without further action.

Compliance Surveys

Beginning around 2006 and continuing through 2015 or 2016, the PRP mailed compliance surveys to 100 lawyers selected at random from the bar directory.  We stopped for staffing reasons. It’s something I might re-employ once the Bar Assistance Program is up and running.

Responses that raised “red flags” were assigned docket numbers and either referred for an audit, referred for non-disciplinary resolution, or referred to Disciplinary Counsel for an investigation.  In addition, and per the recommendation of a CPA, we randomly selected 10 responses that did not otherwise raise “red flags” for audits. One resulted in the disbarment of a lawyer who, on the eve of an audit, contacted me to let me know that the audit would reveal misappropriation. The lawyer’s dishonesty on the compliance survey compounded the lawyer’s problems.

Insufficient Funds Notices

Many of you might be thinking “wait Mike, don’t you mean ‘overdraft notices?’”  I don’t.  “Overdraft notice” is a misnomer.

As I mentioned in part 1, trust accounts must be maintained at a financial institution that has been approved by the Professional Responsibility Board. Approval is conditioned upon the institution agreeing to notify Disciplinary Counsel whenever an instrument drawn on an attorney trust account is presented against insufficient funds.  Notification is required “irrespective of whether or not the instrument is honored.”  That’s why “overdraft notice” is a misnomer.  Stated differently, if it isn’t going to notify Disciplinary Counsel as well, it’s not cool for your bank to contact you to warn you that a trust account check has been presented against insufficient funds.

Years ago, the Board decided to treat insufficient funds notices differently than other disciplinary complaints.  When a disciplinary complaint is filed, it is screened by Bar Counsel.  If the complaint is referred to Disciplinary Counsel for an investigation, the lawyer has 20 days to file a written response.  By contrast, and per Board policy, ISF notices are not “screened.”  They go straight to Disciplinary Counsel and the lawyer has 5 days to explain what happened.

While some do, not every ISF notice results in a disciplinary prosecution. Those that involve relatively minor bookkeeping issues are resolved by Disciplinary Counsel or referred for non-disciplinary resolution by an assistance panel, and still others are closed without further action.

How could an ISF notice be closed without further action?  Isn’t an ISF notice proof of a violation?

Excellent questions.

Indeed, disbursing without the funds to do so is a serious problem.  However, there are a few answers.

One is referenced in Don’t Disburse without Collected Funds.  The rules authorize lawyers to disburse against the deposit of certain “trusted” instruments.  At times, even those instruments fail, with the result being that the trust account check issued in reliance thereon fails too. If the disbursement was against an approved instrument, the subsequent presentation against insufficient funds is not a violation.

Another example is bank error. Yes, sometimes banks make mistakes.

Finally, intervention by the Professional Responsibility Program isn’t always required in response to an isolated instance in which a lawyer mistakenly disburses from the wrong trust account.  Real estate lawyers, for example, often have trust accounts at multiple banks.  Sometimes they mistakenly use the Bank A checks to disburse in connection with a closing conducted through the trust account that’s maintained at Bank B. Caveat: fool us once, shame on you.  Fool us twice with the ole “I used the wrong checkbook!” shame on us.

In my opinion, ISF notices are important in that they draw scrutiny to lawyers with shoddy bookkeeping practices. This is especially true when we receive multiple notices about the same account, lawyer, or law firm.  And, it’s critical that we scrutinze shoddy bookkeeping practices because they put client funds at risk. However, I don’t think ISF notices help to prevent or detect misappropriation.

For one, as I blogged in Don’t Borrow, borrowing from the trust fund has another name: misappropriation.  Lawyers who misappropriate, while not smart, tend to be smart enough not to borrow too much. Effectively, they wager that certain clients won’t ask for their money back anytime soon. As you might guess, wagering with client funds is frowned upon.

Further, I prosecuted three major defalcations in the mid-00’s.  In each, hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken without causing a single overdraft. One lawyer had intentionally NOT informed the bank that the account was an IOLTA.  Thus, while the account was often overdrawn, we never found out.  Another made sure not to “borrow” beyond the “float” the lawyer had deposited into the trust account.  A “float” is the lawyer’s own funds, deposited to ensure that the account is never overdrawn.  Finally, a third attorney settled a matter, didn’t tell the client, and took the money. (Vermont’s rules do not require payee notification.)

Still, absent bank error or an isolated mistake, an ISF notice is a sign that something is seriously amiss. The lawyer’s explanation might provide grounds for a disciplinary prosecution.  Or, before deciding whether to file formal disciplinary charges, Disciplinary Counsel might order a compliance review or request our next tool, a court-ordered audit.

Audits

By rule, the “Supreme Court may at any time order an audit of financial records, including trust and fiduciary accounts, of a lawyer or law firm and take such other action as it deems necessary to protect the public.”  Read literally, “at any time” means “at any time.”  Nevertheless, I considered a court-ordered “audit to protect the public” to be a step beyond a “compliance review” that Disciplinary Counsel could order for any reason or no reason at all. So, I’d typically only ask for one in connection with a request for an interim suspension.  Absent evidence of a violation, I was far more likely to employ a “compliance review.” Which brings me too . . .

Interim Suspensions

Usually, Disciplinary Counsel can’t simply charge a lawyer with violating the rules.  Rather, if an investigation leads to a decision that charges are warranted, Disciplinary Counsel must ask a hearing panel (our trial court) to review the decision for probable cause. If probable cause is found, Disciplinary Counsel can charge the lawyer.

However, the rules that govern the PRP recognize that there will be cases so serious that the lawyer should not be allowed to practice pending the outcome of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation. By rule, if Disciplinary Counsel receives “sufficient evidence demonstrating” that a lawyer has violated the rules and “presently poses a threat of serious harm to the public,” Disciplinary Counsel must transmit the evidence to the Supreme Court, along with a proposed order for the immediate interim of suspension of the lawyer’s license.  If granted, the interim suspension remains in effect until the final resolution of the conduct that poses the threat of harm. I suppose they’re analogous to a “hold without bail.”

Unsurprisingly, it’s rare to request an interim suspension.  Generally, they issue when a lawyer abandons a practice, commits a serious crime, suffers from a severe behavioral health issue, or misappropriates client funds.

Conclusion

 I’ve often stated that the duty of candor to a court trumps all other duties. In fact, it does.

However, in my view, there is no greater threat to the privilege to self-regulate than the failure to impose serious sanctions on lawyers who misappropriate or fail to safeguard funds held in trust.  That is why we’ve chosen to provide Disciplinary Counsel and the PRP with so many different tools to investigate and enforce compliance with the trust accounting rules.

Again, these two posts were inspired by someone asking me why I never blog about trust accounting.  Ummm, have you not seen the “related posts” that are linked below?  If not, check ‘em out.  In the meantime, I’ll conclude this post as I did the first: don’t tell me I don’t blog about trust accounting.

Oh, and speaking of calling it a night and “in the meantime,” I think I’ll have a drink and listen to Spacehog.

spacehog

 Related Posts:

  • ACH Transfers
  • Bitcoin as Payment for Legal Fees
  • Basics of Fee Agreements
  • Basic Requirements of Trust Accounting
  • Don’t Borrow
  • Don’t Commingle
  • Don’t Disburse without Collected Funds
  • Don’t fear or overcomplicate trust accounting
  • Identifying Trust Account Scams
  • Non-refundable fees
  • PayPal, Venmo, Mobile Apps & Legal Fees
  • Prompt Notification & Delivery of Trust Funds
  • Third-Party Claims Against Client Funds
  • Trust, but Verify
  • 6 minutes? 15 minutes? When does a rounding error become an unreasonable fee?

The Trust Account CLE Videos:

  • Don’t Fear, Simplify.  (25 minutes)
  • Basic Requirements(41 minutes)
  • Contingent Fees, Referral Fees & Fee Sharing(22 minutes)
  • Flat Fees, Misappropriation & Trust Account Scams(35 minutes)
  • Collecting & Disbursing Funds(33 minutes)

Post navigation

← Older posts
Follow Ethical Grounds on WordPress.com

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,077 other subscribers

Categories

  • Access to Legal Services
  • Addiction
  • Advertising
  • Alternative Business Structures
  • Bar Assistance Program
  • Candor
  • Civility
  • client communication
  • Client Confidences
  • Client Funds
  • Client Property
  • Client Protection
  • COLAP
  • Commingling
  • Communicating with a Represented Person
  • Communication
  • Competence
  • Conflicts
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Decorum toa Tribunal
  • Diligence
  • Disciplinary Process
  • Duties of a Prosecutor
  • Expediting Litigation
  • Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel
  • Fee Agreements
  • Fees
  • File Delivery
  • FIve for Friday
  • Flat Fees
  • Frivolous Claims
  • Guest Pass
  • Inadvertent Receipt & Production
  • Lawyer Advertising
  • Lawyer Mindfulness
  • Lawyer Well Being
  • Lawyer Wellness
  • Lawyers Assistance Program
  • Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
  • Leaving a Law Firm
  • Legal Ethics
  • Legal Ethics & Access to Justice
  • License Renewal
  • Mandatory Malpractice Insurance
  • Marijuana
  • Mental Health
  • Monday Morning Answers
  • nonlawyer ownership
  • Online Reputation Management
  • Pro Bono
  • Professionalism
  • Redesigning Legal
  • Reregulation
  • Safeguarding Client Data
  • scams
  • social media
  • Stories from a Bar
  • Substance Abuse
  • Succession Planning
  • Tech Competence
  • Tech Ethics
  • Trial Publicity
  • Trust Account Management
  • Trust Accounting
  • Trust Acounting
  • Truthfulness in Statements to Others
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Vermont Courts Coronavirus
  • Vermont Judiciary COVID-19
  • Wait…what?
  • Was That Wrong
  • Well-Being Week In Law
  • Wellness Wednesday
  • Who Decides? Client or Lawyer?
  • Withdrawal
  • WSYW

Tags

#fiveforfriday #LawyerWellBeingWeek ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services ABA Journal Above The Law ABS Arrested Development Attorney Well-Being Attorney Wellness Barry Zuckerkorn Better Call Saul Bob Loblaw Boston Red Sox Breaking Bad Candor to Tribunal Civility client communication client confidences competence Conflicts of Interest Contingent Fees Crowdfunding Fees Fee Sharing File Delivery FIve for Friday fiveforfriday Former Client Conflicts Game of Thrones George Costanza Judicial Ethics Kenny Chesney Kramer Larry Bird Lawyers Assistance Program Lawyer Well-Being Lawyer Well Being Lawyer Wellness Legal Ethics legal technology Michael Scott Monday Morning Answers Monday Morning Honors My Cousin Vinny Negative Online Reviews North Carolina State Bar No Shoes Nation Prince prmadness Pro Bono professional responsibility Referral Fees Robert Ambrogi Rule 1.6 Rule 1.9 Rule 4.2 Saul Goodman scams Seinfeld social media Suits Taylor Swift Tech Competence The Kentucky Derby Trust Accounting Trust Account Management Trust Account Reconciliation trust account scams Uniform Bar Exam Vermont Bar Association Vermont Bar Exam Vermont City Marathon Watergate Well-Being Week In Law Wellness Wednesday

Recent Posts

  • Five for Friday #270
  • Another lawyer sanctioned for social media conduct that would’ve resulted in a sanction even before social media existed.
  • VBA distributes a survey on civility & professionalism
  • Two financial institutions removed from the list of those at which Vermont lawyers may maintain IOLTA accounts.
  • Identified by facial recognition software, a lawyer was kicked out of a holiday show at Radio City Music Hall because she works at a firm that is suing the corporation that owns the venue.

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015

Recent Comments

Identified by facial… on ABA opinion concludes that the…
Identified by facial… on Update on the no-contact rule…
Identified by facial… on The no-contact rule, represent…
With an assist from… on Virginia advisory opinion conc…
With an assist from… on ABA opinion concludes that the…

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Bar Counsel

32 Cherry Street, Suite 213
Burlington, VT 05401
1-802-859-3004

Recent Posts

  • Five for Friday #270
  • Another lawyer sanctioned for social media conduct that would’ve resulted in a sanction even before social media existed.
  • VBA distributes a survey on civility & professionalism
  • Two financial institutions removed from the list of those at which Vermont lawyers may maintain IOLTA accounts.
  • Identified by facial recognition software, a lawyer was kicked out of a holiday show at Radio City Music Hall because she works at a firm that is suing the corporation that owns the venue.

Recent Comments

Identified by facial… on ABA opinion concludes that the…
Identified by facial… on Update on the no-contact rule…
Identified by facial… on The no-contact rule, represent…
With an assist from… on Virginia advisory opinion conc…
With an assist from… on ABA opinion concludes that the…

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015

Categories

  • Access to Legal Services
  • Addiction
  • Advertising
  • Alternative Business Structures
  • Bar Assistance Program
  • Candor
  • Civility
  • client communication
  • Client Confidences
  • Client Funds
  • Client Property
  • Client Protection
  • COLAP
  • Commingling
  • Communicating with a Represented Person
  • Communication
  • Competence
  • Conflicts
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Decorum toa Tribunal
  • Diligence
  • Disciplinary Process
  • Duties of a Prosecutor
  • Expediting Litigation
  • Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel
  • Fee Agreements
  • Fees
  • File Delivery
  • FIve for Friday
  • Flat Fees
  • Frivolous Claims
  • Guest Pass
  • Inadvertent Receipt & Production
  • Lawyer Advertising
  • Lawyer Mindfulness
  • Lawyer Well Being
  • Lawyer Wellness
  • Lawyers Assistance Program
  • Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
  • Leaving a Law Firm
  • Legal Ethics
  • Legal Ethics & Access to Justice
  • License Renewal
  • Mandatory Malpractice Insurance
  • Marijuana
  • Mental Health
  • Monday Morning Answers
  • nonlawyer ownership
  • Online Reputation Management
  • Pro Bono
  • Professionalism
  • Redesigning Legal
  • Reregulation
  • Safeguarding Client Data
  • scams
  • social media
  • Stories from a Bar
  • Substance Abuse
  • Succession Planning
  • Tech Competence
  • Tech Ethics
  • Trial Publicity
  • Trust Account Management
  • Trust Accounting
  • Trust Acounting
  • Truthfulness in Statements to Others
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Vermont Courts Coronavirus
  • Vermont Judiciary COVID-19
  • Wait…what?
  • Was That Wrong
  • Well-Being Week In Law
  • Wellness Wednesday
  • Who Decides? Client or Lawyer?
  • Withdrawal
  • WSYW

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • Ethical Grounds
    • Join 366 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ethical Grounds
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...