What must a Connecticut firm do with old trust-account funds when the clients' names and addresses cannot be identified?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2014. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A firm discovered an unexplained balance in a real-estate client-funds account after the responsible partner departed with the files and related funds. The balance may have accumulated over more than twenty years, and the old ledger cards had been destroyed under the firm's retention practice.
The loss of client names and addresses does not end the fiduciary duty described in Rule 1.15's commentary. The Rules do not specify a different disposition when the owners cannot be identified.
On the assumption that identification is impossible, the Committee concludes that the remaining available duty is to keep the funds safe until Connecticut's escheat statutes control.
In practice
Under this opinion, an accounting failure does not convert unidentified client money into firm property. The funds retain their protected status while the firm awaits the legally prescribed unclaimed-property process.
Common questions
Q: May the firm treat the balance as income?
A: No. The fiduciary duty continues despite the lost ownership records.
Q: What if the clients truly cannot be identified?
A: The firm keeps the money safe until the state escheat laws apply.
Q: Do the Rules specify a different solution?
A: No. The opinion says the Rules impose the fiduciary duty but do not provide a separate disposition method for unknown owners.
Background and rules framework
Rule 1.15 and its commentary govern the firm's continuing fiduciary duty over client funds. Connecticut's unclaimed-property statutes govern eventual escheat.
Citations and references
Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 1.15 and Official Commentary
Statutes:
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-61(a) et seq.
Other opinions cited:
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 89-24, trust money belonging to missing clients
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 93-25, funds held for missing clients
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 98-18, trust funds for clients who cannot be located
See also
- Ohio Ethics Op. 2008-003: Unclaimed client trust funds
- Texas Ethics Op. 602: Unclaimed trust funds delivered to comptroller
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 14-07
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2014. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace