Can a North Carolina lawyer accept credit card payments into a trust account when the bank's merchant agreement lets it charge back the account without notice?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who accepts credit card payments must sign a merchant agreement that typically lets the bank "charge back" the merchant's account, without prior notice, when a cardholder later disputes a charge. Because RPC 247 requires unearned fees and expenses paid by credit card to be deposited into the trust account, a chargeback could be taken from money belonging to other clients. The opinion addressed whether a lawyer may enter such an agreement and on what conditions.

The opinion concluded a lawyer may participate, but only if the lawyer takes appropriate steps to protect other clients' funds. A lawyer holding client funds is a fiduciary who must keep each client's funds available only for that client and not for the lawyer's creditors or other clients (Rule 1.15-1; RPC 191). The opinion set out a sequence: first try to negotiate that chargebacks be debited from a non-trust account (such as the operating account or a separate demand deposit account); if the bank insists on debiting the account that receives the payments, arrange an inter-account transfer so a non-trust account is immediately debited and the trust account promptly replenished; and if neither is possible, establish a separate trust account used solely to receive advance credit card payments, withdrawing those funds immediately into the primary trust account. Under all circumstances, the lawyer is ethically compelled to pay into the trust account, from the lawyer's own or another source, enough to cover any chargeback that jeopardizes other clients' funds.

The opinion also concluded a lawyer may not participate in a merchant agreement that grants the bank a security interest in the lawyer's accounts, because Rule 1.15-1(g) prohibits using or pledging trust funds to obtain credit, unless the trust account is specifically exempted from the security interest. Finally, where the nature of the practice is such that all collected fees are earned at the time of collection, the lawyer may arrange for credit card payments to go directly to the operating account (Rule 1.15-1).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before North Carolina's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it cites the trust-accounting rules under the numbering then in effect (Rule 1.15-1, including paragraph (g)), along with the prior opinions CPR 129, RPC 247, and RPC 191. The opinion itself notes that the trust-accounting rules it quotes (former Rules 10.1 and 10.2) had already been repealed. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina lawyer accept credit card payments into the trust account?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a lawyer may do so, but only if the funds of other clients in the trust account are protected from a chargeback (Rule 1.15-1; RPC 191).

Q: How does the lawyer protect other clients from a chargeback?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer must, in order of preference, have chargebacks debited from a non-trust account, or arrange an inter-account transfer to replenish the trust account, or use a separate trust account for advance credit card payments that is swept immediately into the primary trust account.

Q: Can the bank take a security interest in the lawyer's trust account?

A: No. The opinion concluded Rule 1.15-1(g) bars pledging trust funds to obtain credit; the lawyer may sign only if the trust account is specifically exempted from the security interest.

Q: What if all of the lawyer's fees are earned when collected?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer may then arrange for credit card payments to be deposited directly into the operating account (Rule 1.15-1).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina Rule 1.15-1 (safekeeping client property; the fiduciary duty to preserve each client's funds and the bar on pledging trust funds for credit in paragraph (g)), the analogue to Model Rule 1.15, to a lawyer's merchant agreement for accepting credit card payments. It built on prior opinions CPR 129 and RPC 247 (credit card and electronic payments must be deposited in trust if unearned) and RPC 191 (fiduciary duties over trust funds).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.15 (safekeeping property) / NC Rule 1.15-1, including paragraph (g)

Other opinions cited:

• CPR 129; RPC 247: lawyers may accept payment by electronic transfer and credit card; unearned fees go into trust
• RPC 191: a lawyer's fiduciary duties over funds held in trust

See also

• NC State Bar Op. 98 FEO 14: Soliciting Funds to Pay a Client's Legal Fees
• NC State Bar Op. 97 FEO 4: Nonrefundable and Flat Fees

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/97-formal-ethics-opinion-9/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Inquiry #1:

To accept charges paid by MasterCard and Visa credit cards, as well as other national credit cards, a lawyer must enter into a standard form "Merchant Agreement" with a bank in which the bank agrees to deposit credit card payments from cardholders electronically into the merchant's account with the bank subject to certain conditions. Among other conditions, such agreements typically permit the bank to debit a merchant's account for the discount fee, or the bank's charge to the merchant for advancing the credit card payments. In addition, such agreements typically permit the bank to "charge back" the merchant's bank account, without prior notice, in the amount of a prior payment by credit card which is subsequently disputed by the cardholder. The dispute process is commenced when the cardholder notifies the credit card issuer that he disputes a charge shown on his statement. The merchant is notified of the dispute. Documentation of the charge is requested from the merchant. If the documentation is not deemed satisfactory or the merchant fails to respond, the bank may debit the disputed amount from the merchant's account with the bank without prior notice to the merchant.

Lawyers may accept payment of legal fees by electronic transfer and credit card. CPR 129 and RPC 247. However, RPC 247 requires a lawyer to arrange to have all credit card payments electronically deposited into the trust account if the lawyer's bank cannot or will not distinguish between the operating account, into which earned fees should be deposited, and the trust account, into which unearned fees should be deposited. To avoid the problem of commingling the funds of clients and the lawyer's funds, the opinion provides:

[i]f a payment by electronic transfer of an earned fee cannot be distinguished by the bank from a payment by electronic transfer of an unearned fee, all payments by electronic transfer should be deposited into a lawyer's trust account and earned fees should be withdrawn from the trust account promptly. [Citing now repealed Rule 10.1(c).] The lawyer may also deposit into the trust account funds sufficient to pay the bank's service charges for electronic transfers. [Citing now repealed Rule 10.1(c)(1).] A ledger should be maintained for the service charges posted against such funds. [Citing now repealed Rule 10.2(c)(3).]

According to RPC 247, all payments of unearned fees and expenses must be deposited into a lawyer's trust account even if the payment is made by credit card. May a lawyer participate in a merchant agreement with a bank to honor credit card charges if the agreement gives the bank the authority to debit the lawyer's trust account for a chargeback without prior notice to the lawyer?

Opinion #1:

Yes, provided the lawyer takes appropriate steps to protect the funds of other clients on deposit in the trust account.

A lawyer who receives funds that belong to a client assumes the responsibilities of a fiduciary to safeguard those funds and to preserve the identity of the funds by depositing them into a designated trust account. Rule 1.15-1 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct and RPC 191. The responsibilities of a fiduciary include the duty to ensure that the funds of a particular client are used only to satisfy the obligations of that client and are not used to satisfy the claims of the lawyer's creditors or of other clients of the lawyer. RPC 191. Therefore, a lawyer may participate in a merchant agreement with a bank to honor the credit card payments of clients only if the funds of other clients on deposit in the lawyer's trust account will be protected against a chargeback.

To avoid the potential jeopardy to the funds of other clients on deposit in a trust account, the lawyer must first attempt to negotiate an agreement with the bank that requires the bank to debit an account other than the trust account in the event of a chargeback. Some banks will route chargeback debits (and the discount fee for credit card charges) against a firm's operating account. Some banks may require a merchant to maintain a separate demand deposit account in an amount sufficient to cover chargebacks. If a bank cannot or is unwilling to debit a separate account, (i.e., the bank requires all chargebacks to be debited from the account into which credit card payments are deposited), the lawyer must request that the bank arrange an inter-account transfer such that the lawyer's operating account, or other non-trust account, will be immediately debited in the event of a chargeback against the trust account and the money promptly deposited into the trust account to cover the chargeback. If the bank will not agree to debit another account or arrange for inter-account transfers, the lawyer must establish a trust account for the sole purpose of receiving advance payments by credit card. The lawyer must withdraw all payments to this trust account immediately and deposit them in the lawyer's "primary" trust account. In this way, the risk that a chargeback will impact the funds of other clients will be minimized.

Under all circumstances, a lawyer is ethically compelled to arrange for a payment (from his or her own funds or from some other source) to the trust account sufficient to cover the chargeback in the event that a chargeback jeopardizes the funds of other clients on deposit in the account.

Inquiry #2:

May a lawyer participate in a merchant agreement that grants the bank a security interest in the accounts that the lawyer maintains with the bank?

Opinion #2:

No, Rule 1.15-1(g) prohibits the use or pledge of funds in a trust account to obtain credit. If one or more of the accounts is a trust account, the lawyer may not participate in the agreement unless the trust account or accounts are specifically exempted from the grant of a security interest.

Inquiry #3:

If the nature of a lawyer's practice is such that all fees that the lawyer collects are earned at the time of collection, may the lawyer arrange for payments by credit card to be made directly to the lawyer's operating account?

Opinion #3:

Yes. Rule 1.15-1.

End Notes

• The Truth in Lending Act (§170, 15 USC §1666i) and Regulation Z (12 CFR §226.12(c)) contain provisions which preserve a cardholder's claim and defenses against a card issuer in certain circumstances. A cardholder is given a right to assert against the card issuer all claims (other than tort claims) and defenses arising out of the credit transaction that it would otherwise have against the merchant. Regulation Z does not provide any guidance as to the nature of the claims and defenses that may be asserted. Since it does give the cardholder the right to assert against the card issuer any claims and defenses available that would be available against the merchant, however, most merchant agreements provided for a "pass through" of the problem. The power of a cardholder to reverse a credit card transaction is very broad. The following is the mandatory disclosure that must appear in the credit card agreement with a prospective cardholder: If you have a problem with the quality of property or services that you purchased with a credit card, and you have tried in good faith to correct the problem with the merchant, you may have the right not to pay the remaining amount due on the property or services. There are two limitations on this right: (A) You must have made the purchase in your home state, if not within your home state, within 100 miles of your current mailing address; and (B) The purchase price must have been more than $50.00. These limitations do not apply if the card issuer owns or operates the merchant or if we mailed you the advertisement for the property or services (Regulation Z, App. G-3).