Opinion ID: 2055255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bailey's exceptions

Text: Bailey takes a number of exceptions to Judge Bowen's findings of fact. We dismiss them with the observation that even if Judge Bowen erred, and we do not believe he did, each of these exceptions relates to facts relative to occurrences in the fall of 1976 and the winter of 1976-77. They are only peripherally relevant to the central issue which concerns Bailey's conduct in the summer of 1976. DR 9-102 relative to preservation of the identity of funds and property of a client states, (A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer ..., other than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts.... Bailey contends that the term `cost and expenses' includes the recording costs of the documents and as such the same did not fall within the requirement to be placed in a separate escrow account. We disagree. Ethical Consideration 9-5, pertinent to Canon 9 to which DR 9-102 (A) applies, states: EC 9-5 Separation of the funds of a client from those of his lawyer not only serves to protect the client but also avoids even the appearance of impropriety, and therefore commingling of such funds should be avoided. We think it quite plain that the funds for recordation of these instruments were the property of the parties to the settlement (the sellers as to the recording costs for release of their mortgage and the buyers for the costs of recordation of their instruments and the taxes thereon) and thus that Bailey was obliged under the rule to deposit these sums in an escrow account if he were not going to immediately pay them over for their intended purpose.