|
|
December 5, 2003
Louis S. Zarfas
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of the PTOS
P.O. Box 2600
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Re:
PTO Will
Accept a Signature From an Employed Attorney Who Has Not Been
Specifically Authorized to Charge a Deposit Account As Long As One of
the Stated Authorized Users Is the Firm Name Itself
Dear Lou:
I am with a large firm and read with interest the letter by Rick Neifeld, published at 85 J.P.T.O.S. 925-26 (November 2003).
Mr. Neifeld questions the propriety of a signature by an attorney who has not been specifically authorized to charge a deposit account, and in support of this position he quotes an unidentified PTO official.
One of my colleagues and I conducted our own independent investigation of this issue. According to Edward Squires of the Deposit Account Branch, the listing of our firm name as an authorized user includes all attorneys employed by the firm. Furthermore, Mr. Squires indicated that the PTO does not want a firm to list every individual user because such is unnecessary.
Mr. Neifeld’s point may have validity, but only for those firms which do not list their own firm name as an authorized user.
I write with the thought that other firms may benefit from the results of our investigation, and suggest that to avoid the problem noted by Mr. Neifeld, firms should simply list their current firm name as an authorized user.
Sincerely yours,
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
Joseph Scafetta, Jr.