Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation
141 L. Ed. 2d 174, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4003, 118 S. Ct. 1925 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Interest earned on client funds held in Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) is the private property of the client for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. A state cannot, by legislative fiat, transform this private property into public property by abrogating the traditional common law rule that interest follows principal.
Facts:
- Attorneys in Texas are often required to hold client funds for short periods.
- Federal banking laws and regulations made it impractical for small or short-term client deposits to earn net interest if held in separate accounts.
- Texas established an IOLTA program requiring lawyers to place such funds into a single, pooled, interest-bearing account.
- Michael Mazzone, a Texas attorney, regularly deposited client funds into an IOLTA account.
- William Summers, a client, deposited a retainer with his attorney, which was then placed into an IOLTA account.
- Under the Texas program, the interest generated from these pooled IOLTA accounts is paid to the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (TEAJF) to fund legal services for low-income individuals.
- The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), along with Mazzone and Summers, opposed this program, claiming the interest was their property.
Procedural Posture:
- Washington Legal Foundation, Michael Mazzone, and William Summers sued the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and others in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The plaintiffs alleged the Texas IOLTA program constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs had no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that any interest that accrues belongs to the owner of the principal.
- The defendants (petitioners in this court) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the interest generated on client funds held in a state's Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) program constitute 'private property' of the client for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the interest generated on client funds held in an IOLTA program is the client's private property. This conclusion stems from the traditional and firmly embedded common law principle that 'interest follows principal.' A state cannot simply abrogate this fundamental property right by legislative decree. Citing Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, the Court reasoned that a state may not transform private property into public property by 'ipse dixit' without compensation. The fact that the funds could not generate net interest for the client on their own is irrelevant; property is more than just its economically realizable value and includes the rights to possess, use, and dispose. Furthermore, the interest is not 'government-created value' but is value generated by the clients' funds, and the government's waiver of regulatory costs does not transform it into public property.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
The Court should not answer the abstract question of whether the interest is property in isolation. Answering this question alone may have no practical significance because, given the regulatory landscape, there has likely been no 'taking' or, if there was, the 'just compensation' required would be zero, as the clients lost no money they could have otherwise earned. The proper course is to analyze the property question in conjunction with the taking and compensation questions to avoid a purely theoretical ruling that could distort subsequent Fifth Amendment analysis. The Court should have vacated the judgment and remanded for consideration of all three issues together.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No, the interest is not the client's private property under these circumstances. The 'interest follows principal' maxim does not apply because the principal was effectively barren; due to federal law, it could not have generated interest for the client on its own. The interest exists only because of the government's IOLTA program. This interest is analogous to value created by a government project, like electricity from a new dam, which does not become the property of the owner of the underlying land. The client has not been deprived of anything they ever had a right to, so the interest generated by the state's intervention is not their property for Takings Clause purposes.
Analysis:
This decision firmly established that the 'interest follows principal' doctrine is a fundamental property right protected by the Takings Clause, not merely a default common law rule that states can easily override. By defining IOLTA interest as private property, the Court resolved a circuit split and set the stage for the next phase of litigation: whether IOLTA programs constitute a 'taking' and what 'just compensation' might be owed. This ruling forces lower courts to grapple with the novel question of calculating compensation for property that, while constitutionally recognized, has no net economic value to its owner, thereby complicating future takings jurisprudence.
