<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Ambrose</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/Ambrose/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/Ambrose/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:51:59 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Bank Failure, the FDIC, and your IOLTA Account</title><link>http://fastcase.blogspot.com/2008/12/bank-failure-fdic-and-your-iolta.html#comment-4370487</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately the State Bar Rule governing the type of institution where a deposit of client funds must be deposited references a portion of the State Bar Rules that have been repealed. The reference in answer to the question is to the Rules of the Foundation. There does not seem to be a clear answer to the question as to the type of institution into which an attorney may deposit client funds that do not qualify for an IOLTA account, that is will earn interest over the costs of maintaining the account. Query, would the attorney be liable for putting funds into that are not IOLTA qualified into an IOLTA account for more than the FDIC insured amount if that bank fails and a safer alternative was available? &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ambrose</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:51:59 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>