80-1.

• Case Date: September 08, 1980
• Court: Alaska

Alaska Ethics Opinion 1980. 80-1. Ethics Opinion No. 80-1Propriety of Attorney Remitting to His Client Monies the Attorney Received on the Client's Behalf when the Attorney Either Knew or Should Have Known that there were Liens on that Money; (Vacated by 86-4) Propriety of an Attorney Filing a Proper Offer of Judgment when that Attorney is Aware that there are not Funds Available to Pay the Judgment, if Accepted.The Ethics Committee has been asked the following two questions: 1. Attorney "A", in the course of his representation of his client, either knew or should have known that certain liens had arisen such as medical bills. Thereafter, Attorney "A" receives monies on behalf of his client which he immediately remits to the client, ignoring the liens. The client in turn fails to pay the creditors who were looking to the recovery as a source from which to be compensated. Has the attorney violated any ethical considerations? 2. Attorney "A" represents X, a plaintiff in a personal action. Attorney "B" represents defendant Y. Attorney "B" files a proper Rule 68 offer of Judgment for a reasonable amount. X instructs Attorney "A" to accept the offer of judgment and Attorney "A" does so. It turns out that there are not funds, nor have there ever been funds, to pay the judgment. Attorney "B" knew this when the offer was made and accepted. Attorney "A" did not. Has Attorney "B" violated any ethical consideration? With respect to question 1, it is the Committee's opinion that the attorney has violated no ethical considerations or disciplinary rules in remitting the funds to his client. Obviously, attorneys are bound by their...