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the check; recognize[d] the check as counterfeit and inform[ed] Plaintiff; advise[d] Plaintiff that funds should not be withdrawn until final payment given the nature of the check and the account; and notif[ied] Plaintiff at the 'earliest time it knew or should have known that the check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
Oct 2, 2026
Expansive New Commercial Financing Licensing Requirement Signed into Law in California

In The News
Oct 2, 2026
Spencer Kook Explores How AI is Reshaping the Insurance Workforce

In The News
Oct 1, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses Emerging Antitrust Risks Tied to Social Media Algorithms

Healthcare Alert
Sep 30, 2026
Feeding Better Outcomes: The OIG’s Compliance Roadmap for Food-As-Medicine Programs

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 30, 2026
Illinois Supreme Court Delivers a Third Key Win for Mortgage Lenders

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Carol Rooney and Adam Topel Co-Author Article on Recent Developments in Appellate Advocacy

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses New Landmark California Wildfire Insurance Reforms

Event
September 27–29, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Discuss Key Compliance and Litigation Issues at the 2026 MBA Conference

Press Release
Sep 24, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2027 “Powerhouse in Litigation” by BTI Consulting




