ILNews

Indiana State Bar Association files new trust mill suit: Indianapolis company accused of unauthorized practice of law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A decade ago, Vesser and Helen Davis met with an estate planning company representative about how to divvy up their assets and their Hamilton County farm.

That representative drew on a flipchart, illustrated ways a partnership and corporation could be set up, outlined differences between wills and trusts, explained the probate process, and advised the pair how they could arrange their finances and establish a corporate structure for the family farm business. In the end, they paid thousands of dollars for an estate planning package they thought would be best for the family.

The elderly couple thought the person they met with was an attorney.

He wasn't. Their estate planning purchase was secured with inadequate and invalid paperwork, forced them to pay out even more money to redo the documents, and the couple ended up losing out on a $4 million offer for their farmland that had been put into a corporation and would have meant double taxation if a sale had happened.

Now that company - United Financial Systems in Indianapolis - is the defendant in an action filed with the Indiana Supreme Court on Oct. 9, accused of operating a trust mill that engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and wrongly collected more than $1 million from at least five families throughout the state. While not common in Indiana, this type of trust mill action follows a string of similar actions seen in courts nationally as the country's population ages and companies look to cater to those growing estate planning needs.

The case is brought on behalf of the Indiana State Bar Association, which with the state Attorney General's Office and the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission are the only three groups allowed to bring unauthorized practice of law actions. Indianapolis attorneys Kevin McGoff and Rafael Sanchez with Bingham McHale are representing the bar association.

In the 36-page filing, the ISBA outlines the background of the 26-year-old United Financial, located on the northwest side of the city. The company advertises itself as providing "suitable estate & financial planning solutions" and selling estate planning documents that include wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. The company also sells securities and insurance products such as annuities.

According to the complaint, an estate planning assistant who is not a lawyer contacts and sells the services; that information is passed on to a licensed lawyer who contacts the client by phone and crafts the documents before returning them to United Financial for review and delivery to the client. The salespeople are encouraged to educate clients about the need for estate planning, and are specifically told, "not to apply any legal principles to a client's specific circumstances." The fee for a basic living trust is $2,495 while a will preparation fee is $695, according to the complaint.

A disclaimer on its Web site says that the corporation is not engaged in the practice of law and isn't a lawyer or law firm, though exhibits presented by the ISBA point out that clients had very limited contact with the licensed attorneys and most of the individuals who advised them were non-attorneys.

A total of five counts are made in the ISBA's action - one for each person or couple who bought into an estate planning package with United Financial.

One victim is a 78-year-old Allen County woman who never married. She had 12,000 shares of Exxon Mobile stock estimated in value at $520,000. A previous will from 1987 would have given her six nieces and nephew 200 shares each, while the remaining shares would be evenly divided between her brother and sister. The complaint details how United Financial advised her to liquidate her stock and purchase annuities in February 2002, which ended up with her relatives receiving $5,000 instead of the stock shares and her getting hit with more than $130,000 in tax liability.

For the Davis family, their decision revolved mostly around their Westfield farm that encompassed more than 80 acres. They started meeting with a United Financial representative in January 1997, and within a few months had paid $5,150 for document preparation and to create a limited family partnership for their family farm business.

"The Davises' estate planning documents were inadequate and contained provisions that are invalid in Indiana," the complaint says. "In addition, the corporate documents sold to the Davises and prepared by United Financial in 1997 were deficient and ultimately resulted in gain being subject to double taxation due to the corporate structure, which United Financial recommended and then established for them."

As a result, the Davises ended up paying the family attorney $8,336 to redo the estate planning and corporate documents prepared through United Financial, and they were unable to accept a $4 million offer for their farm because the corporate structure setup through United Financial would have resulted in double taxation.

Vess Davis died in January and won't see the result of this action, but the ISBA hopes United Financial will be permanently enjoined from continuing this practice. The bar association also requests the court order the company to reimburse about $1 million in fees collected for the unauthorized practice of law, and to consider ordering United Financial to release all the names and address of clients and other employees who might be affected by the court's decision.
 Attorney Ron Elberger with Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis, who is representing United Financial along with attorney Peyton Berg, says the company has taken substantial steps in the past and presently to make sure they are complying with state law.

"That's occurring and is ongoing," Elberger said, declining to elaborate because of the current case. "They have engaged counsel to assist them by adjusting their program so they're in compliance with Indiana law. The company looks forward to the opportunity to present its case in court."

While not common in Indiana, this issue is one that courts across the country are addressing more frequently. One of the two unauthorized practice of law actions filed in Indiana in recent years - State ex. Rel Indiana State Bar Assoc. v. Northouse, 848 N.E.2d 668, 672 (Ind. 2006) - did have a trust mill component, McGoff said.

In Northouse, the court addressed a case where two northern Indiana men had been engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by advising people on wills, trusts, and other documents without having law licenses. In a per curiam opinion, the court stated unequivocally that preparing and drafting a will and advising others on the legal consequences of specific estate-planning decisions constitutes the practice of law.

"Taking an action like this is not a common action within the legal community, but it's an action that's essential to protect elderly citizens from this type of practice," said ISBA president Bill Jonas of South Bend. "This is a consumer protection issue, and one we have to address because the legal community is often called upon to clean up what took place in these actions." •    
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT