IOLTA UPDATE if you accept Credit Cards: Circular 230 Disclosure: CBS Radio v. Emmis = DQ:

Credit Cards and IOLTA – New Problem

If you have been innovative over the past few years and started to accept credit card payments, and then posted them when required, directly to your IOLTA trust account (thanks Dan Reed and LawPay – a great ISBA member benefit) you better check your merchant account now.

Congress added Section 6050W to the code effective Jan 1, 2013.  As reported in LawBizzCoo, a legal business blog, there is a new requirement that if the credit card processor’s information is not exactly as contained in the IRS’s file (i.e. name change of firm, new address) the processor must withhold 28% of each deposit processed by the credit card company, including funds deposited in IOLTA.

The Disciplinary Commission may start getting notices of bounced checks from banks (required under the rules allowing banks to hold IOLTA funds) and lawyers may start getting certified letters from the Commission.  Those funds are not being mis-deposited, so you cannot just move them, they are held for potential taxes. You have to come up with the funds, and answer the grievance, in short order. Take a moment now and check your EIN letter and your Merchant Account Agreement. Fix it ASAP.

The same will happen to your general account, but that will not automatically involve the DC. It may later, but your landlord will not appreciate the rent check bouncing.

I discussed this with my office manager and she has been on top of it for a while, thanks to AffiniPay (a/k/a LawPay and Dan Reed). Whether you are with LawPay or some other provider, it is your skin in the game. Make sure everything lines up as it should.

***

Tax abuse schemes are serious! Up to $190M serious for one lawyer.

The IRS issued one of its worst ideas a few years ago, called the Circular 230 Disclosure. Good in theory, to require lawyers to warn clients and potential clients not to construe information in a letter or email as being tax advice from the author to engage in a tax scheme, unless that is the purpose of the letter. Now a majority of lawyers’ posts of recipes or sports commentary carries a long disclaimer at the end that no client lacking an MBA could understand, and that most posters do not understand, or they would not prize their every utterance so highly!

But, sometimes folks should avoid doing what lawyers like Donna Guerin did, and review the tax code before writing tax schemes.

Ms. Guerin wrote a scheme so good she and her co-author claimed that her law firm’s clients could save millions of dollars in taxes. And she was no fly-by-night lawyer. A partner in the once prestigious BIG law firm Jenkins & Gilchrist, she recently pleaded guilt to criminal tax fraud, will go to prison for 8 years and has agreed to a penalty and restitution of $190 Million. Her partner entered his plea early and only has to pay $1.6 Million.

For my lawyer friends, be careful with the indiscriminate use of the Circular 230 language, and for the lawyers who do tax work, go back and read Circular 230 in-depth. Then be careful.

****
Great fight, but Ice goes down.

Speaking last week on the Ethics of Developing and Representing Businesses, I was asked to discuss those lawyers who get disqualified from cases for overlooking and violating a Conflict of Interest. Rules 1.7 & 1.9 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct are pretty clear when lawyers must not violate the pledge of loyalty we take to our clients (see Comment 1 to RPC 1.7). But lawyers continue to lose focus of their duty, often when one engagement is completed and a chance to earn a new fee surfaces in a “new” case.

I have had the call on the Ethics Hotline (facts changed to protect the calling lawyers) where a previous client went to a new lawyer, with a similar problem, and the same or similar issues. The old lawyer gets in the case, deciding that things have changed since the first time these folks met. Then that old lawyer just hates getting the call or letter saying “I think you have a conflict and need to get out of the case.”  Take that call seriously!

One of Indy’s premiere big firms, Ice Miller was hired by Walter Berger, an employee of Emmis Broadcasting Co., to help him in a senior management employment contract in 2002. Emmis had suggested Ice Miller to Berger. In 2005 Berger renewed that contract with Emmis, then several months later left Emmis to go to work for CBS Radio, Inc. Emmis did not like that, hired their lawyers, Another of Indy’s top big firms, Barnes & Thornburg to sue CBS for hiring Berger, (USDC, So. IN, Case No. 1:06-cv-0920) then it discharged B&T and hired Ice Miller to represent it in the case.

Ice shows up in the suit, and CBS and Berger demand it get out of the case due to an alleged conflict of interest. Ice, showing an incredible amount of chutzpah, lashed back with several defenses and a couple of accusations (which to an outsider read like they were based on client confidences), including that there is no conflict because “it is clear” that Berger breached the Emmis contract. The facts and issues were well briefed by both sides (materials in the ICLEF book) and Federal Judge Larry J. McKinney wrote a great explanation of the tests and the considerations involved in a DQ motion, in his 14 page Order. It is available on Pacer, or through Westlaw($$$).

Bottom line, loyalty is paramount, the issues are looked at from the client’s POV, and while case dicta and commentary makes it sound tough for the clients to prevail, in reality it is hard for a lawyer to win on this issue. There are a few outlier cases, but from my study, the issue, once raised, should be seen in the practical light of “how much is it worth to fight this issue, plus the possible ethics complaint, if you win? Is there enough in the case to pay all that?”  After looking at that, you should consider the option to prepare that Motion to Withdraw and have a talk with your now ex-client.

Advertisements

One thought on “IOLTA UPDATE if you accept Credit Cards: Circular 230 Disclosure: CBS Radio v. Emmis = DQ:

  1. Mr. Waggoner, thank you for sharing information on the new IRS 6050W requirements with your colleagues. I would also like to mention, it is LawPay’s policy, if for any reason a LawPay client is not considered an IRS match in our system, we will suspend the account. This will help prevent the 28% withholding until the legal name/TIN mis-match issue is resolved. Many thanks for being a LawPay client!
    Best,
    Amy Porter
    CEO
    LawPay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s