Changes

In '''''Brown v. Legal Foundation''''', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] affirmed that the [[Fifth Amendment]] applies to protect income against complete takings by government.  538 U.S. 216 (2003).  The unanimous Court agreed that a "law that requires that the interest on [client] funds be transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use, however, could be a ''per se'' taking requiring the payment of 'just compensation' to the client."  ''Id.'' at 240.   

In '''''Brown v. {{TT2}}{{TT2}}Legal Foundation''''', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] affirmed that the [[Fifth Amendment]] applies to protect income against complete takings by government.  538 U.S. 216 (2003).  The unanimous Court agreed that a "law that requires that the interest on [client] funds be transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use, however, could be a ''per se'' taking {{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}requiring the payment of 'just compensation' to the client."  ''Id.'' at 240.   

At issue in ''Brown'' was the constitutionality of a Washington law requiring attorneys to deposit client trust funds in a common account for the benefit of a [[legal aid]] program if the individual interest amounts to less than individual administrative costs.  The Court split 5-4 against compensating the client for the taken interest based on the likely excess of administrative costs over income, but all Justices agreed that seizure of this interest did constitute a taking for purposes of the [[Fifth Amendment]].

At issue in ''Brown'' was the constitutionality of a Washington law requiring attorneys to deposit client trust funds in a common account for the benefit of a [[leg{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}{{TT2}}al aid]] program if the individual interest amounts to less than individual administrative costs.  The Court split 5-4 against compensating the client for the taken interest based on the likely excess of administrative costs over income, but all Justices agreed that seizure of this interest did constitute a taking for purposes of the [[Fifth Amendment]].

[[Category:United States Law]]

[[Category:United States Law]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]