Skip to content

MENU

HomeAboutContactCOVID-19 Task Force
Thompson Hine logo
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

The Law for Lawyers Today

Ethics, Professional Responsibility and More

Home > Law Practice Management > Ponzi schemer misused funds, but Fox Rothschild not liable to non-client says NJ supreme court

Ponzi schemer misused funds, but Fox Rothschild not liable to non-client says NJ supreme court

By Karen Rubin on January 17, 2020
Posted in Law Practice Management

“Attorneys carry substantial responsibility, but it is folly to suggest it is limitless,” said the New Jersey Supreme Court last week.  The court ruled that when the Fox Rothschild firm complied with its client’s disbursement instructions it did not thereby convert funds that a non-client had wired to the firm’s trust account — even though, unbeknownst to the firm, its client made fraudulent use of the funds.

The unanimous decision provides some reassurance to law firms that when they have no knowledge of any competing claim to trust account money (a fact conceded in the case), they can follow their client’s instructions on what to do with it.

“Ponzi schemer” funds

The non-client wired some $2 million to the firm’s trust account through an intermediary payment facility, without identifying the non-client as the funds’ owner, and without any instructions or limitations on disbursement.  The funds were to be part of a real-estate deal between the non-client and the firm’s client.  The firm distributed the funds as the client later directed.

As described in reporting from Law360 and the New Jersey Law Journal, the funds were part of the client’s massive Ponzi scheme in which he promised investors large returns on real estate sales but kept the money for himself.  (The client is reported to be attempting to set aside his 24-year prison sentence.)

Among other claims, the non-client sued the firm for conversion of the funds.  The trial court dismissed the conversion claim, but the intermediate court of appeals reversed.  The Garden State supreme court reinstated the dismissal.

No dominion, no demand

The non-client argued that the law firm exercised wrongful dominion and control over the trust account funds he had wired, and that demand for their return would have been futile, as the funds had already been wrongfully transferred.

The supreme court rejected the argument, primarily because the firm received the funds with no indication that they belonged to the non-client, and without any limiting instructions or conditions.  “Funds held in an attorney’s trust account for its client are the client’s funds, not the firm’s,” said the court.  With no knowledge of a competing claim, or even any knowledge about the non-client and his role in the real estate deal, the court said, “the firm acted appropriately in adhering to the client’s directions” and “in accordance with its reasonable understanding of who did control the direction of the funds’ use — the client.”

Further, the supreme court held that the demand obligation under the circumstances was not a futile one that could be jettisoned.  Rather, the “demand is the linchpin that transforms an initial lawful possession into a setting of tortious conduct,” the court said.  While there are exceptions to the demand requirement, this was not one of them.  Demand was even more essential here, said the court, because “it would have been the means to alert the firm that a competing claim existed and would have triggered the firm’s obligation to reasonably inquire further” before complying with its client’s disbursement instructions.

And because money is fungible, the court ruled, this was not a situation where demand would have been excused because the chattel had already been wrongfully transferred.   (In other words, the demand could have been satisfied with money other than the specific funds that had been transferred to the firm’s trust account.)

Rules of conduct and client instructions

In addition to the conversion claim, the non-client also asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  Fox Rothschild argued that if lawyers could not follow a client’s instructions on disbursing funds, they would be burdened in their ability to comply with New Jersey’s version of Model Rule 1.2, requiring lawyers to “abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation.”

The court seemed to agree, and also rejected the proposition that the firm had fiduciary duties to the non-client.  Because the non-client used an intermediary in the funds transfer, the firm did not even know that the non-client existed.

This opinion from New Jersey’s high court repays reading, and the reasoning upholds the ability to rely on a client’s disbursement instructions when a firm doesn’t know (and has no duty to know) of competing claims to trust account funds.

Tags: conversion of trust account funds, duties to non-clients, lawyer trust account, Meisels v. Fox Rothschild LLP, Model Rule 1.15, Model Rule 1.2, Ponzi scheme
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Karen Rubin Karen Rubin

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of…

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of the Ohio State Bar Association’s Ethics Committee. She chairs that committee’s Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics.

Read more about Karen RubinKaren's Linkedin ProfileKaren's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Legal marriage concept
New York says presumption for sharing confidential information in joint representations does not apply retroactively
February 22, 2023
Pulling
Lawyer trust accounts and unclaimed funds: what are your duties?
April 29, 2021
Close-up of hands gesturing during business meeting in office
Law firm arbitration agreement with client requires full disclosure of upside and downside, NJ court rules
March 4, 2021

Blog Editors Show/Hide

  • Amy G. McClurg
  • Tom Feher
  • Jennifer S. Roach
  • J.A. Schneider

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

About this Blog

The Law for Lawyers Today is a resource for law firms, law departments and lawyers needing information to meet the challenge of practicing ethically and responsibly. Here you’ll find timely updates on legal ethics, the “law of lawyering,” risk management and legal malpractice, running your legal business— and more.

SERVICE OFFERINGS TO LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • Censure serves as reminder that zealous advocacy is no excuse for lack of candor toward tribunal
  • New York says presumption for sharing confidential information in joint representations does not apply retroactively
  • Ohio clarifies when out-of-state lawyers are permitted to conduct and defend depositions  
  • Supreme Court Ultimately Declines to Decide Attorney-Client Privilege Case
  • Impairment considered mitigating factor but insufficient to shield from meaningful sanctions
Thompson Hine logo
Atlanta | Chicago | Cincinnati | Cleveland | Columbus | Dayton | New York | Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

About Thompson Hine

For more than a century, Thompson Hine has been committed to excellence on behalf of our clients, our people and the communities in which we live and work. Clients rank us among the top firms in the United States for client service year after year, and we are proud of the accolades we have earned in recognition of our capabilities and leadership.

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2023, Thompson Hine. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo