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the check; recognize[d] the check as counterfeit and inform[ed] Plaintiff; advise[d] Plaintiff that funds should not be withdrawn until final payment given the nature of the check and the account; and notif[ied] Plaintiff at the 'earliest time it knew or should have known that the check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

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”


