Bank Entitled to Recover Counterfeit Check Amount From Attorney's Client Trust Account
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 2 min read
Aug 21, 2013
Dixon, Laukitis, & Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank, 2013 IL App (3d) 120832 (3rdDist., July 31, 2013)
Brief Summary
A lawyer scammed by a fake check scheme attempted unsuccessfully to sue his client trust account bank for negligence. The court dismissed the case, holding that although the bank accepted a counterfeit check for deposit into the trust account, the bank had no liability and was entitled to charge back the trust account upon receiving notice that the check was counterfeit.
Summary
The plaintiff law firm (Plaintiff) maintained its client trust account at defendant bank (Bank). Plaintiff fell prey to a common check scam, depositing a $350,000 (counterfeit) check from a foreign bank into the firm's client trust account, and then writing $270,000 worth of checks back to the client before the foreign check cleared. When the foreign check didn't clear, Bank removed the $350,000 from Plaintiff's account.
Plaintiff sued Bank for negligence alleging that the bank should have "inquire[d] as to the circumstances of how Plaintiff acquired the check; recognize[d] the check as counterfeit and inform[ed] Plaintiff; advise[d] Plaintiff that funds should not be withdrawn until final payment given the nature of the check and the account; and notif[ied] Plaintiff at the 'earliest time it knew or should have known that the check would not be paid by the drawee bank.'”
The court disagreed, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint on summary judgment, relying mainly upon Plaintiff's account agreement and various provisions of Article 4 of the UCC. Because the Bank complied with the UCC, and UCC compliance is "non-negligent" as a matter of law, the court concluded that the Bank was not liable to Plaintiff. Moreover, any Bank duties to Plaintiff were spelled out in the account agreement, and Illinois' version of the economic loss doctrine prohibited tort claims in that regard.
Significance of Opinion
This decision is significant because it teaches that lawyers tricked by this or similar international check scams have little recourse, absent E&O insurance.
For more information, please contact Terrence P. McAvoy or Noah D. Fiedler.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Featured Insights

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

Press Release
May 11, 2026
John Weedon Re-Elected to the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Board of Governors in 2026

Press Release
May 7, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2026 BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Lister Firm




