At least two New Jersey law firms that were victimized by phony check scams have gone to court seeking to get the money back from the banks that handled the checks.

Freedman & Gersten in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., claims it wired $236,659 to a company in South Korea based on a check that turned out to be fake, while Levitan & Frieland of Florham Park, N.J., has lodged similar allegations.

Freedman & Gersten is suing Bank of America, on whose assurances it says it relied when it deposited a $274,705 client check in its attorney trust account and wired most of the money overseas.

The bogus check, received last Feb. 6, was made out to the firm, was labeled "Official Check" and appeared to be drawn on the Citibank account of Weltronics Component Ltd. in Hong Kong and according to the complaint in Freedman & Gersten v. Bank of America, 09-cv-5351, filed in Bergen County Superior Court on Sept. 10 and removed to federal court in Newark, N.J., on Oct. 20.

The client's instructions, two days later, to wire $128,600 to Nassco Korea Co., raised a red flag because a new client in a foreign country was asking the firm to pay money to a third-party foreign entity. So before depositing the check into its trust account at the Glen Rock, N.J., branch, "in an abundance of caution," it sent a copy to Bank of America asking it to contact Citibank to make sure the check was good, the firm alleges.

Bank of America allegedly responded with an e-mail saying "go ahead and deposit the check," adding that it was drawn on Citibank's account, not the customer's, which made it Citibank's obligation to make sure it was funded and that "[i]t would be unheard of for the bank to bounce one of its own checks."

The firm claims it relied on that assurance on Feb. 11 when it deposited the check into the trust account, which held $26,810 in other clients' funds.

Then, following revised instructions from the client, the firm wired $236,659 to Twin Consult Inc. in South Korea on Feb. 19, via separate transfers of $103,659 and $133,000.

By the time Citibank returned the unpaid check with a notation that it was unable to locate the account, the money had been withdrawn from the Korean bank that received it. That same day, Feb. 23, Bank of America charged back the amount of the $274,705 check to the trust account, resulting in an overdraft of nearly $210,000.

Freeman & Gersten claims it had to replace the other account funds, presumably to comply with court rules governing lawyers' trust accounts.

The firm's eight-count complaint includes claims for consumer fraud, negligence, breach of contract and conversion. Its claim for violation of a federal regulation, 12 C.F.R. 229.1, is asserted as the basis for federal question jurisdiction justifying removal to federal court.

Bank of America, in its answer on Oct. 30, admitted to communications with the firm, though not as described in the complaint, and to charging back the $274,000 check, while denying any wrongful conduct. It also counterclaimed for the amount of the overdraft.

The bank's attorney, Gregg Sodini of Sodini & Spina in Freehold, N.J., says his firm has defended a number of suits by businesses and individuals, including one other law firm, duped by the same type of phony check scam.

"Attorneys should know better," he says. "How many clients do you have who you take a case from over the Internet without ever meeting them? Why are you in a hurry to wire money to parts unknown?"

Getting a huge check so quickly and being paid tends of thousands of dollars for doing little more than writing a letter should set off alarm bells, in his view.

Also, even if, as alleged, the bank told the firm the check funds were available, that is not the same as the final settlement of the check, Sodini says.

Firm partner Martin Gersten did not return a call. The firm's lawyer, Thomas Buonocore of Parsippany, N.J., declines to discuss the specifics of the case but says, "As discovery progresses, we'll be able to establish more and more that the actions of the bank were not only improper but probably against their own procedures."

Sodini's partner, Patrick Spina, is defending Valley National Bancorp in a similar case in Morris County Superior Court, Levitan & Frieland v. Valley National Bancorp, MRS-L-1702-08.

Spina says Levitan & Frieland filed suit in June 2008, along with an order to show cause seeking to compel replacement of the funds in its account. Judge Theodore Bozonelis denied the relief on July 28, 2008, and ordered the firm to notify ethics authorities of what had occurred.

Levitan & Frieland also sued Sun Trust Bank, the Florida bank on which the check was drawn, but Judge W. Hunt Dumont granted its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Levitan & Frieland allegedly deposited a $197,530 cashier's check on behalf of a "client" in Japan and wired $96,410 to a Korean bank on behalf of a third party.

Several things should have tipped the firm off, says Spina.

For one, the "client" was related to a company in Massachusetts, which should have raised the question "why would a Massachusetts company utilize one of its alleged Far Eastern affiliates to contact you in New Jersey because it was trying to find a U.S. lawyer to collect debts?"

Also, the firm's name was allegedly found through the Chamber of Commerce Web site, but the chamber does not recommend lawyers, adds Spina.

He says Levitan & Frieland deposited the bogus check, received in a collection matter, into an account designated for real estate transactions and New Jersey requires next-day availability for such checks so that they do not bounce at the closing.

Fraudsters take advantage of the several days' gap between availability of the funds and when a check finally clears, says Spina.

Philip Levitan did not return a call for comment.