The Escrow Funds and the Vanishing Client
Attorney Marsh represents Consolidated Builders in a construction dispute. As part of a settlement, Marsh agreed to hold $250,000 in his client trust account pending completion of punch-list work. The funds belonged to the opposing party until the work was certified. Marsh's operating account was overdrawn, and he transferred $120,000 from trust to cover payroll, intending to repay it within 30 days. The punch-list work was certified six weeks later, but only $130,000 remained. The opposing party demanded the full $250,000. Consolidated's owner, Mr. Vale, had signed a settlement authorizing Marsh to hold the funds. Vale now faces a claim from the opposing party and sues Marsh. Marsh says Vale authorized the transfer orally.
1. What duties did Marsh breach, and does Vale have a malpractice claim?
Read the worked answer
Marsh breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and safekeeping and violated the rules governing client trust accounts. Third-party funds held in escrow are not the lawyer's to use; commingling and misappropriation are among the most serious violations. Even if Vale orally authorized a transfer, the funds belonged to the opposing party until certification, so Vale could not consent to their use. Written authorization would not cure it either.
Vale has a strong malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. He must show duty, breach, causation, and damages. The breach is clear. Causation: but for the transfer, the full $250,000 would have been available and the opposing party would have been paid, avoiding Vale's exposure. Damages: the $120,000 shortfall plus any consequential damages - the opposing party's claim, potential penalties, and harm to Vale's business reputation.
Marsh's oral-authorization defense fails because consent cannot override the escrow terms and the third party's ownership. Expect discipline and possible criminal referral as well.
2. How should Vale's damages be measured, and can Marsh offset anything?
Read the worked answer
Vale's direct loss is the $120,000 missing from escrow, which he must now cover to satisfy the opposing party. If the opposing party also claims interest, penalties, or litigation costs to recover the funds, those are consequential damages caused by Marsh's conduct and are recoverable if foreseeable.
Marsh may try to offset fees Vale still owes, but a lawyer generally cannot collect fees for services tainted by the misconduct, and a court may order disgorgement. Any offset is likely small relative to the loss.
Vale should also consider that the $130,000 remaining must be accounted for and returned promptly. If Marsh used trust funds to pay himself fees not yet earned, that is a separate violation. The measure is make-whole: put Vale where he would have been if the escrow had been preserved - full $250,000 available at certification, no opposing-party claim.
3. What should Marsh have done when his operating account was overdrawn?
Read the worked answer
He should never have touched trust funds. When the operating account was short, his options were to seek a loan, delay payroll with employee consent, reduce expenses, or withdraw only earned fees after proper accounting and notice. He could not borrow from client or escrow money, even temporarily, even with an intent to repay.
If he needed funds from a client, he should have requested a replenishment of a retainer, documented it, and kept trust and operating funds strictly separate. For the escrow, he should have confirmed the certification timeline in writing and held the funds untouched until the condition was satisfied.
Once the shortfall occurred, the correct response was immediate self-reporting, restitution from personal funds, and notice to affected parties - not concealment. His failure to do so aggravates both the malpractice exposure and the disciplinary consequences.