Can a few dollars of bank interest on money that clients temporarily park with their lawyers amount to unconstitutional “compelled speech”? One recent lawsuit argues that when the state skims that interest to fund legal‑aid organizations, it crosses the line between legitimate access‑to‑justice funding and violates First Amendment rights.
Maine’s IOLTA Framework
The initial lawsuit surrounded Maine’s mandatory Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program, which is governed by Maine Bar Rule 6. This rule states that when an attorney holds client funds that are “nominal or short‑term” (and therefore cannot earn net interest for the client after accounting for costs), the attorney must place those funds in an IOLTA account. Any interest generated is to be paid to the Maine Justice Foundation (MJF).
Rule 6 directs MJF to receive and distribute this pooled interest “to provide services that maintain and enhance resources available for access to justice in Maine.” Such services include legal services, education, and assistance for low‑income, elderly, or needy clients, as well as activities that improve the administration of justice.
MJF distributes these funds to six organizations that provide civil legal aid, immigration and elder‑law services, community legal education, and pro bono representation in Maine. David Wescott is a Maine attorney who owns law firm Russell Johnson Beaupain LLC (RJB). Wescott morally and politically opposes the causes and activities of the organizations that the MJF funds, calling them “morally, ethically, religiously, and politically abhorrent.”
Wescott’s Retainer Issue
In June 2023, Wescott paid a $2,500 retainer to RJB for legal services, an amount that was then deposited into an IOLTA account. The interest generated on that IOLTA account was released by the financial institution to MJF under the mechanisms established in the rule, rather than being paid to Wescott or retained by the firm.
Wescott brought a lawsuit against MJF, along with the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the State Court Administrator for the Maine Judicial Branch. He contended that he and his firm had been forced to allow interest arising from client funds to be used to subsidize the speech and advocacy of organizations whose viewpoints they reject. He framed it as a Constitutional challenge, claiming that it constituted compelled support of private speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Wescott alleged that there is “no practicable alternative” to using an IOLTA account for client retainer funds, and that if any such practical alternative existed they would have used it. He further alleged that, but for the IOLTA program, interest on his retainer would have accrued to his own benefit. Therefore, he said, he and his firm’s participation in IOLTA diverts funds that otherwise would have been his to organizations whose views he opposes.
District Court Dismisses
The district court characterized the statement that the IOLTA interest “would otherwise accrue to Wescott’s benefit” as “simply false” in light of existing IOLTA precedents. Existing precedent on IOLTA programs holds that interest generated on IOLTA accounts “belongs to no one” and that clients cannot obtain any net return from such funds. Based on this, the district court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly shown that the IOLTA program forced them to fund others’ speech in a way that implicates the First Amendment. Because the court concluded that the complaint did not state any legally sufficient claim, it granted the state defendants’ motions to dismiss and threw out all remaining claims in the case.
After the district court dismissed the case, Wescott and RJB appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In their appeal, they argued that the district court’s First Amendment analysis was wrong because it was based on older IOLTA precedent that is no longer good law after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME.
Last week, the First Circuit heard oral arguments in the case.
First Circuit Weighs the Case
At oral argument last week, the First Circuit focused on whether Wescott’s complaint actually showed that using an IOLTA account was mandatory for his $2,500 retainer, and how that fact tied into his First Amendment claim. The judges pressed his lawyer on the tension between alleging that the retainer earned interest and asserting there was “no practicable alternative” to IOLTA.
The judges asked what, in big‑picture terms, counts as the “subsidy” here: whether it is the loss of interest Wescott might have received, the use of his principal as the basis for pooled interest, or both. They also pressed whether a client can claim a compelled‑speech injury even without any net financial loss. They referenced Supreme Court cases (like Janus) treating IOLTA‑generated interest as the client’s property and questioned how that interacts with older circuit precedent suggesting that such interest “belongs to no one.”
The state’s attorney portrayed Maine’s IOLTA system as limited in scope and emphasized that lawyers have significant discretion and protection when deciding how to hold client funds. This led the judges to explore whether Wescott could have avoided IOLTA through different retainer arrangements or instructions to his counsel.
Counsel for MJF then faced questions about whether the foundation itself could be ordered to change how it distributes IOLTA funds in a way that would meaningfully address Wescott’s alleged injury, or whether only state officials who design and enforce the rule can provide real relief.
Throughout, Wescott’s lawyer returned to the larger theme that his client’s money was used, through the IOLTA mechanism, to support causes he opposes, and that this use of his funds is what he characterizes as an unconstitutional compelled subsidy of speech.
For now, the parties and court await the First Circuit’s decision, which will determine whether Maine’s IOLTA program survives this First Amendment challenge or is sent back for further proceedings.
Related Resources
- Chicago’s Tow Regime Gets Green Light from Seventh Circuit (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
- Eighth Circuit Says Commutation Doesn’t Bar Appealing a Criminal Sentence (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
- California’s Open‑Carry Regime Struck Down in the City, Survives in the Country (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
