Opinion ID: 835498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Cause of Complaint: DR 9-101(A) and DR 9-101(D)(1)

Text: In its third cause of complaint, the Bar alleged that the accused (1) failed specifically to identify his lawyer trust account by use of the phrase Lawyer Trust Account, in violation of DR 9-101(A); [15] and (2) failed to maintain an interest-bearing lawyer trust account, in violation of DR 9-101(D)(1). [16] The trial panel found that the Bar had not established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused had violated DR 9-101(A) because the accused had made an effort to properly label his account as a Lawyer Trust Account. The trial panel found, however, that the Bar had established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused had violated DR 9-101(D)(1) because he never reconciled his monthly statements and, therefore, never verified whether the bank was in compliance with his original instructions to set up an interest-bearing account. The accused argues that the trial panel erred in finding that he had violated DR 9-101(D)(1) because he had instructed the bank to set up his lawyer trust account in compliance with the rule and he had been unaware that the bank, due to its own error, had not done so. As discussed above with respect to the accused's failure to maintain client funds in a trust account in violation of DR 9-101(A), DR 9-101(D)(1) does not specify a particular mental state that the Bar must prove to establish a violation of that rule. Accordingly, a violation can be proved if the lawyer failed to comply with the requirements of the rule and did so either intentionally, knowingly, or negligently. DR 9-101(A) and DR 9-101(D)(1) require lawyers to ensure that any client funds be deposited and maintained in a trust account that bears interest and that is specifically identified by use of the phrase Lawyer Trust Account. As demonstrated by his instructions to the bank in setting up his lawyer trust account, the accused was aware of that obligation. Nevertheless, between February 2000 and April 2004, his lawyer trust account did not comply with those rules. The accused is correct that the bank committed the initial errors in failing to establish the account as an interest-bearing account and in failing to designate the account properly as a Lawyer Trust Account on checks and monthly statements. Here, however, the accused's lawyer trust account failed to comply with DR 9-101(A) and DR 9-101(D)(1) from February 2000 through April 2004. The accused received a bank statement for the lawyer trust account each month within that time frame and made deposits and withdrawals from the account. A reasonable lawyer would have reviewed those monthly statements and checks and would have noticed that the trust account was not an interest-bearing account and was not properly identified as a Lawyer Trust Account. The accused was negligent in failing, for more than four years, to bring his lawyer trust account into compliance with the rules. We hold that the Bar has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accused violated both DR 9-101(A) and DR 9-101(D)(1).