Does a Mississippi lawyer commit an ethics violation by writing a personal check for personal goods that bounces for insufficient funds?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney commits an ethics violation when he gives a personal check for personal goods or services and the check is dishonored for insufficient funds, and whether it makes a difference if "Attorney at Law" appears on the check. The opinion noted the questions were general rather than tied to the specific bad-check provisions of the Mississippi Code (Sections 97-19-55 through 97-19-69), did not address business or trust-account checks, and did not address whether criminal activity was involved. It noted that a series of acts over an extended period resulting in a criminal conviction can be a specific violation of the Rules of Discipline (citing Mississippi State Bar Association v. Cotter, 512 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1987)).

The opinion applied Rule 8.4, under which it is professional misconduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, or to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Reading the rules with reference to the purposes of legal representation, the opinion concluded that although bouncing a check is a violation of criminal law, the personal act of writing a dishonored personal check for personal goods is not per se an ethics violation unless it reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness or involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

On the second question, the opinion concluded that the personal nature of the transaction means the "Attorney at Law" designation on the check makes no difference.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the adoption of the current Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct effective June 22, 1994 (amended February 5, 1999), though it cited Rule 8.4 numbered as in the current rules. Mississippi did not adopt the ABA's 2002 Ethics 2000 revisions wholesale, and subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is bouncing a personal check an ethics violation for a lawyer?

A: Under this opinion, not by itself. It concluded that a dishonored personal check for personal goods or services is not per se an ethics violation unless the act reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness or involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under Rule 8.4.

Q: Does it matter that "Attorney at Law" was printed on the check?

A: No. The opinion concluded that the personal nature of the transaction means the "Attorney at Law" designation makes no difference.

Q: Could repeated bad-check conduct still lead to discipline?

A: The opinion noted that a series of acts over an extended period that result in a criminal conviction can be a specific violation of the Rules of Discipline, citing Mississippi State Bar Association v. Cotter.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rule 8.4 (misconduct), specifically 8.4(b) (a criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness) and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4. It read those provisions, with the Rules' preamble, to mean a purely personal dishonored check is not per se misconduct absent the dishonesty or fitness elements, and referenced the Rules of Discipline (Rules 6 and 6.1) and the bad-check statutes (Miss. Code Sections 97-19-55 et seq.).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness) (cf. Model Rule 8.4).
• MRPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) (cf. Model Rule 8.4).

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Sections 97-19-55 through 97-19-69 (bad-check provisions).

Cases:

• Mississippi State Bar Association v. Cotter, 512 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1987) (series of acts resulting in criminal conviction as a disciplinary violation).

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 213: Reporting a Non-Client's Probable Past Criminal Violation Learned in Discovery
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 205: Duty to Disclose a Client's and a Non-Client's Perjury to the Tribunal
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 196: Duty to Correct Excessive Statutory Attorney's Fees Already Charged

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/143/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1432/35a_et_op_143.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ETHICS OPINION NO. 143

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED March 11, 1988

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT - An Attorney does not commit an ethical violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct by presenting for payment a check drawn on his personal account for personal goods or services when such check is not honored by the Bank or lending institution due to insufficient funds.

The Ethics Committee of the Mississippi State Bar has been requested to render an opinion on the following facts:

1. Attorney A gives a personal check to B for personal goods or services for A's use and such check is ultimately dishonored by the financial institution for insufficient funds or other account deficiency reasons. Has Attorney A, through the presenting for payment a check drawn on his personal account that is not honored by the Bank or lending institution due to insufficient funds, committed an ethical violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct?

2. Does it make any difference if Attorney A had "Attorney at Law" designated in some form or fashion on his personal check or the check Attorney A used to pay for the goods or services purchased for his personal use?

Since the questions asked are in a general nature, and not specific as mentioned in the bad check provisions of the Mississippi Code in Sections 97-19-55 through 97-19-69, this opinion must necessarily be all-encompassing and be broad in its application. This opinion does not address the question of "bouncing" an Attorney's business or trust account check and does not address the issue of whether criminal activity is involved. Please note, however, that a series of acts committed over an extended period of time and not an isolated incident, which result in criminal conviction, are a specific violation of Rule 6 and 6.1 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. See Mississippi State Bar Association v. Cotter, 512 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1987).

Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 Misconduct states in part that:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: ...(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation...

It is noted that the first question addressed refers strictly to a personal check given for personal goods or services and in no way is related to the legal practice of Attorney A. In the preamble to the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct the statement is made that the Rules "...should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself. ...The Rules simply provided a framework for the ethical practice of law." While the "bouncing" of a check is a violation of the criminal law under Section 97-19-55, et seq. of the Mississippi Code of 1972, the Committee feels that unless that act reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects or involves dishonest, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, that the personal act of this Attorney is not, per se, an ethical violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.

In addressing question 2 as to whether or not the designation "Attorney at Law" on the check makes any difference, the Committee feels that the personal nature of the transaction mandates that this designation makes no difference.