Credit Card Account that Avoids Commingling
Opinion rules that a law firm may establish a credit card account that avoids commingling by depositing unearned fees into the law firm's trust account and earned fees into the law firm's operating account provided the problem of chargebacks is addressed.
To avoid the commingling of client funds with a lawyer's own funds, Rule 1.15-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires payments of mixed funds, unearned fees, and money advanced for costs to be deposited into a lawyer's trust account, and payments for earned fees and reimbursements for expenses advanced by a lawyer to be deposited into a lawyer's operating account. Although a lawyer may accept payment of legal fees by credit card, if there is no way to distinguish a credit card payment for earned fees or costs advanced from a payment for unearned fees or anticipated expenses, all credit card payments must be initially deposited into the lawyer's trust account. Earned fees and expense reimbursements are then withdrawn promptly from the trust account for deposit into the operating account or payment to the lawyer. CPR 129 and RPC 247.
A bank1 has developed a credit card account specifically for law firms that separates and deposits payments of unearned and earned client funds into trust and operating accounts as appropriate. Payments for unearned fees (and for anticipated expenses) are deposited directly into the participating law firm's trust account and payments for earned fees (and costs advanced) are deposited directly into the firm's operating account. May a lawyer establish such an account?
Yes, the account satisfies a lawyer's professional responsibility to avoid the commingling of funds. Utilization of such an account does not violate Rule 1.15-2(g) which requires mixed funds (funds belonging to the lawyer received in combination with funds belonging to a client) to be deposited into the lawyer's trust account intact and, after deposit, the funds belonging to the lawyer to be withdrawn. The law firm credit card account described in the inquiry separates the funds prior to their deposit and, therefore, the funds are not mixed when received by the lawyer.
A lawyer may set up such an account only if the lawyer is also able to comply with 97 FEO 9 which addresses credit card agreements that give the processing bank the authority to debit or "charge back" an account in the event a credit charge is disputed. The opinion sets forth the following alternative ways to safeguard client funds in a trust account when the credit card agreement gives the bank the authority to debit the lawyer's trust account for a chargeback by a client without prior notice to the lawyer:
attempt to negotiate an agreement with the bank that requires the bank to debit an account other than the trust account in the event of a chargeback; maintain a separate demand deposit account in an amount sufficient to cover any chargeback; request that the bank arrange an inter-account transfer such that the lawyer's operating account will be immediately debited in the event of a chargeback against the trust account; or establish a trust account for the sole purpose of receiving advance payments by credit card which will be transferred immediately to the lawyer's primary trust account.
As noted in 97 FEO 9, "[u]nder all circumstances, a lawyer is ethically compelled to arrange for a payment (from his or her own funds or from some other source) to the trust account sufficient to cover the chargeback in the event that a chargeback jeopardizes the funds of other clients on deposit in the account." Therefore, provided the lawyer can comply with the requirements set forth in 97 FEO 9, the lawyer may establish a credit card account that deposits funds into separate accounts.