ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Taxation & Estate Planning Blogs -> The Ohio Trust & Estate Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Taxation & Estate Planning

: The Ohio Trust & Estate Blog

An Ohio Lawyer’s Duty of Safekeeping Funds

By Michael D. Bonasera, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

On December 7, 2007, the Ohio Board Of Commissioners On Grievances And Discipline issued Opinion 2007-7 (Word) addressing what duties a lawyers has when holding a client’s funds that the lawyer “knows” may belong to third persons. It is this latter part - the “third persons” part - that is especially vexing for us as fiduciary practitioners because of the potential ethical liabilities that creates.

Via the Elam case (Elam v. Hyatt Legal Services (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 175), Ohio still applies a privity analysis to determine malpractice liability for attorneys. It is because of this privity standard that Ohio fiduciary/probate practitioners are ever wary of “Third Parties.”

The opinion further says:

This Board?s view of the meaning of an ?interest? sufficient to trigger safekeeping duties under Ohio?s Rule 1.15 is guided by Comment [4]. A lawful claim of a third person against specific funds in a lawyer?s custody that is not frivolous under applicable law is an interest subject to a lawyer?s ethical duty of safekeeping for which a lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect. In short, a lawful claim of a third person to specific funds in a lawyer?s possession is an ?interest? for purposes of Rule 1.15.

Obviously, this doesn’t help much. Can a lawyer holding disputed funds rely on his/her own judgment to determine if a claim is lawful? “Professors Hazard and Hodes state that use of the phrases ‘lawful claims’ and ‘duty under applicable law’ suggest that the third party must have a matured legal or equitable claim.” But what does “a matured legal or equitable claim” mean? Can a lawyer holding disputed funds rely on his/her own judgment to determine when a claim is frivolous? That would be nice wouldn’t it! And apparently, even after determining that the claim(s) to the funds in the lawyer’s possession is legal/matured and not frivolous (and lets not forget its only under applicable law - because we always know what law to apply and its always clear) that a lawyer may then have a duty… wow.

Click Here to share this post with other social netowrking sites

Full post as published by The Ohio Trust & Estate Blog on January 04, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0151 secs (new cache)