In fact, this case calls into question the very definition of money. Common law in every state defines interest on private funds as the rent due a money's owner for the use of his money. The Supreme Court has already held that interest on private funds is private property. In short, interest always follows principal. Always, that is, except when you place your money in trust with your attorney.
Attorneys hold money for their clients for a wide variety of legitimate reasons.
In 1994, William J. Summers decided to challenge this practice in Texas. Mr. Summers filed suit to claim his modest portion of that total. Tuesday, attorneys for the State of Texas urged the Supreme Court to create an exception to their own state law and Supreme Court holdings. In a well crafted, albeit circular argument, they suggested that the Supreme Court disregard the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, that government cannot take private property without just compensation, because the clients and attorneys fronting the principal did not expect to earn interest on their money. The fundamental principle that allows a free market to survive is the protection from government usurpation of profits that result from investment and a willingness to risk principal.