Can a lawyer with a religious objection to interest-bearing accounts hold client funds in a non-interest-bearing account instead?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether a lawyer with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from using an interest-bearing account may, with the client's permission, place client funds in a non-interest-bearing account that otherwise meets the requirements of RPC 1.14.

The committee answered that RPC 1.14 does not contain an exception for lawyers who have religious objections to the use of interest-bearing accounts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In those revisions Washington renumbered the trust-account and property-safekeeping rule then designated RPC 1.14 (it is now found at RPC 1.15A, with related record-keeping requirements at RPC 1.15B). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule mentioned here.

In practice

Under the Washington rule as it stood at the time of the opinion, the committee read RPC 1.14 to allow no religious-objection exception to its account requirements. It said the rule does not exempt a lawyer who objects on religious grounds to interest-bearing accounts, so client funds could not be placed in a non-interest-bearing account on that basis, and the client's permission did not change the result. The committee's answer was confined to the religious-exception question presented.

Common questions

Q: Does the trust-account rule have a religious-objection exception?

A: No. The committee said RPC 1.14 contains no exception for lawyers with a religious objection to using interest-bearing accounts.

Q: Does the client's consent let the lawyer use a non-interest-bearing account?

A: The question was framed as the lawyer holding the funds with the client's permission, and the committee still found no exception in RPC 1.14, so consent did not supply one.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.14, the rule then governing safekeeping of client property and trust accounts, which corresponds to Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property). The committee read the rule's account requirements as not admitting a religious-objection exception. (Note the Washington-specific numbering: in 2004, RPC 1.14 was Washington's trust-account/safekeeping rule, equivalent to Model Rule 1.15; the 2006 revisions moved it to RPC 1.15A.)

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.15 / Washington RPC 1.14 (safekeeping of client property; trust-account requirements)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1066: Qualified Trust Accounts
• WA Ethics Op. 1010: Pre-IOLTA Trust Interest
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-13: Interest on Trust Funds

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1306

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 2067
Year Issued: 2004
RPC(s): RPC 1.14
Subject: Request for religious exempt from requirements of RPC 1.14

The inquiring lawyer asks whether a lawyer with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from using an interest-bearing account may, with his client’s permission, place client funds in a non-interest bearing account that otherwise meets the requirements of RPC 1.14.

The committee opined that RPC 1.14 does not contain an exception for lawyers who have religious objections to the use of interest bearing accounts.