1 / 26

IOLTA and the Washington Legal Foundation Case

IOLTA and the Washington Legal Foundation Case . Lucas Figiel Adapted by RWS. IOLTA?. Scheme that takes advantage of bank regulations to generate significant revenue for legal service programs Purpose: to provide services for the indigent

zarek
Télécharger la présentation

IOLTA and the Washington Legal Foundation Case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IOLTA and the Washington Legal Foundation Case Lucas Figiel Adapted by RWS

  2. IOLTA? • Scheme that takes advantage of bank regulations to generate significant revenue for legal service programs • Purpose: • to provide services for the indigent • to improve the administration and access to justice

  3. Consumer Checking Account Equity Act in 1980 • Federal banking restrictions relaxed • Banks authorized to offer Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts • Operate like checking accounts

  4. NOW Requirements: • All interest must go to charitable purpose • none of the funds in the account may belong to a for-profit corporation unless the designated charitable organization has the exclusive right to the interest

  5. Before IOLTA • If net interest  invested for client • If no net interest  non-interest bearing account • Banks benefit

  6. After IOLTA • If net interest  invested for client • If no net interest  into IOLTA • Public benefits when client cannot

  7. IOLTA mandatory in IL • SC Rule 1.15(d) - all IL attorneys must participate • Mandatory jurisdictions generate more revenue

  8. What goes into IOLTA? • Client funds that cannot earn net interest • Either individually or pooled • Targeted money: • Nominal client funds • funds expected to be held for a short duration

  9. Earnings • IOLTA generates over $140 million yearly nationwide • Lawyers Trust Fund of IL • 2001 net IOLTA Income: $3,971,932 • Service Charges: $488,762 • Handling Fees: $ 49,958

  10. Comparison to LSC • IOLTA funds come second to those distributed by the LSC • LSC 2003 budget $329,300,000 • Disbursed to Illinois • 2003 - $11,737,172 • 2002 - $11,737,172 • 2001 - $11,711,351

  11. Why client can’t realize net interest • Administrative and banking expenses consume the interest that is earned • Opponents contend that what couldn’t be earned before IOLTA is being earned now

  12. Fund Usage • wrongful eviction • disabled children • domestic violence • educate the public about legal issues • scholarships • clinical instruction to law students

  13. Also used for… • controversial issues • gay rights • legal aid to poor immigrants trying to come to the US • 1st Amendment implications

  14. Brown v. LFoW Supreme Court of Washington LPOs- what are they? Standing issue- bank services withdrawn? Brown and Hayes are in the real estate business

  15. Allen Brown $14,793.32 for 16 days interest estimated is $2.00 Greg Hayes $90,521.29 for 2 days and estimated interest is $4.96

  16. 5th Amendment Takings • Private Property • Taken • For public purpose • Without just compensation

  17. Purpose of Takings Clause • Prevent the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole

  18. Interest is client’s property? • Circuit split settled by Phillips • Interest that accrues belongs to the owner of the principal • Interest is created by client funds and not the government

  19. Property Taken? • Takings jurisprudence comes in two flavors: • outright takings – permanent, physical occupation of property or where the claimant is deprived of property’s economic or productive use • regulatory takings - regulate how the property can be used • Different tests applied

  20. Test used to establish a taking • Per Se – for outright appropriations and practical equivalent • Ad Hoc – regulatory taking requires careful balancing 1) degree of interference with complainant's investment-backed expectations; none 2) the severity of the economic impact on the complainant; and minor 3) the nature of the government's action fair regulations in highly regulated industry

  21. Proper Test? • Settled by Brown • Per se test - transfer of interest-income to charitable beneficiary appropriates the principal’s beneficial interest in her property

  22. For Public Purpose? • Easily satisfied • compelling interest in providing legal services to millions of needy Americans

  23. Without Just Compensation? • Only uncompensated takings prohibited • Put owner in same pecuniary position had property not been taken • The loss must be pecuniary

  24. Measurement • Measured by owner’s loss not government’s gain • If loss is zero then compensation due is zero

  25. Held • (1) that just compensation is measured by the net value of the interest that was actually earned by petitioners • (2) by operation of the Washington IOLTA Rules, no net interest can be earned by the money that is placed in IOLTA accounts in Washington

  26. IOLTA wins, but… • Whether IOLTA violates First Amendment remains unanswered

More Related