GUEST BLOG: Sucker Law Firm Loses Claim to Undo Wire Transfers

07 February 2011 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

GUEST BLOG FROM BARRY BARNETT

I welcome Barry Barnett as a Guest Blogger with his blog concerning a law firm that fell for a email that sounded too good to be true and which was really Phishing.  Barry’s Blawgletter provides great thoughts, and insights. I read his blogs regularly. Over the years Barry and I have had a number of cases together and he is an outstanding lawyer. Barry is a partner at Susman Godfrey and I’m sure we will see more Guest Blogs from him in the future.

GUEST BLOG: Sucker Law Firm Loses Claim to Undo Wire Transfers

Have you gotten one of those emails that says a non-U.S. outfit has big money coming to it but somehow no one there knows any U.S. lawyers and that the sender wants you to help it get the big money? Perhaps you could advance a small sum — $10,000 perhaps — to grease the skids?
 

How about one of those emails that promises an up-front retainer and lots of work to bill against it?
 

Or one that gives your firm the privilege of holding the new client’s big money with no strings other than that you’ll receive a fee of X percent for your fabulous help?
 

Believe it or not, some folks fall for that sort of thing. And Blawgletter today feels a perverse joy in knowing that, per the Second Circuit, the law will not rescue them from their folly.
 

The case involved a firm that for some reason received and deposited into its account a check for $225,351, which the firm seemed to regard as partial payment of a debt to a "new client" of the firm. Shockingly, before the check officially cleared, the new client asked for almost all of the funds.

The firm’s bank reported the funds as "available". And, per the new client’s requests, the firm wired $182,780 and $27,895 to, er, South Korea and Canada.
 

On the day of the second wire, the Federal Reserve Bank returned the check for $225,351, deeming it a fake. The bank charged the firm for the total plus — and we think this hurt the most — a $10 fee for handling the return of the bad check.
 

The law firm sued the bank for breach of contract. It alleged that the bank should not have called the proceeds of the fake check "available" before the check had in fact cleared. But the district court granted summary judgment to the bank. The Second Circuit affirmed, noting:
 

The obvious flaw with [the firm’s] argument is that Citibank did not advise F&M that the funds were "available for withdrawal as of right." Rather, CItibank advised only that the funds were "available," without representing that the Check had cleared or that the funds had been collected or that settlement had become final. "Available" is different from "available as of right."
 

Fisher & Mandell LLP v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10-2155-cv, slip op. at 15 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2011).
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Will Other Tech Companies Join Microsoft in Honoring CCPA Across the U.S.?
18 November 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Get Off My Lawn! Employers Gain Expanded Rights to Keep Unions Away from Their Property
18 November 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Debunking Conventional Labor and Employment Wisdom
18 November 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call