ILNews

Justices order refunds in estate planning UPL case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is shaking its proverbial finger at a company it found had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, making it clear that the court’s orders must be followed or non-compliant litigants will be sanctioned.

In a two-page order  released Tuesday afternoon, the justices ordered that the Indianapolis-based estate planning services company United Financial Systems follow through with refunding money to those victimized by what has been determined to be the company’s unauthorized practice of law. This is the latest in the three-year-old case of State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551.

In an April 14 ruling, the justices said that United Financial Systems should have known what it was doing was UPL, and as a result the Indiana State Bar Association was entitled to certain statutory attorney fees. The court ordered that disgorgement of fees the company received from its UPL should be returned. It ordered the company to notify all of its Indiana estate plan customers going back to 1995 about the decision, as well as those it retained since a related 2006 decision who might also be entitled to a refund.

But the company refused to pay those refunds, taking the position that the Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t permit the issuance of refunds until the trial-level commissioner issues a restitutionary order.

“This reading of our opinion is incorrect,” the new court order states. “Accordingly, UFSC is ORDERED within ten (10) days of the date of this order, to issue refunds on all claims made to date to UFSC by persons entitled to refunds. Additionally, UFSC is ORDERED, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, to show cause why it should not be ordered to pay interest at the statutory rate on all claims by persons entitled to a refund, effectively from the date the claim was presented to UFSC.”

An exact figure of refunds or claims isn’t outlined in the order or in court filings, and attorneys representing United Financial did not return messages from Indiana Lawyer for this story. But in the Supreme Court’s opinion in April, it provided context for the potential amount: from October 2006 through May 2009, the company’s Indiana business included 1,306 estate plans grossing more than $2.7 million. Nationally, 18.8 percent of UFSC’s total income was reported to have come from those estate planning services in this state.

Wabash attorney Larry Thrush, who is representing two clients with claims against United Financial, said he’s very pleased to see this order from the court. Both clients have claims totaling about $2,500 each, and the company has been telling him that it won’t issue refunds until a commissioner issues a final restitution order.

“This takes away their reasoning for refusing, and I imagine all the clients with claims will now be able to move ahead with getting back money this company took from those services,” he said.

Aside from the refund issue, the court’s order also orders both United Financial and the ISBA to submit new briefs relating to approximately $19,500 in attorneys fees that are at dispute in the case.

Since the company’s attempt to further appeal this case failed when the Supreme Court of the United States denied to accept it in October, the matter now proceeds at the local level once a new commissioner is chosen to take over the case. Originally, the Supreme Court appointed Senior Judge Bruce Embrey from Miami Superior Court as commissioner on this case, and he handled the proceedings and issued a report last year with 266 findings. But he was recently elected county prosecutor and begins Jan. 1, and as a result he’s been removed from the case. The justices have not yet appointed a successor to handle the restitution and other ongoing issues in the case.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT