ILNews

Company hit with class action suits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against an Indianapolis firm that had offered estate planning services to people. Now, the Indiana Supreme Court is considering what happens next against the company it found a year ago had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

At the heart of the issue is United Financial Systems, which lost its license to operate because of an order by the state’s insurance commissioner Jan. 28. That suspension stemmed from a targeted market conduct examination the state agency began last fall and the company’s failure to submit payments. Following an Indiana Supreme Court decision last year and the company’s subsequent license suspension, there has been a growing storm against United Financial.

In State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551, filed by the Indiana State Bar Association in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in April 2010 that the company had engaged in UPL based on how it offered estate planning services. The court ordered that customers be notified and reimbursed, but that didn’t happen and the state’s justices in December again ordered the company to notify and refund money to those it had sold estate planning services.

The justices in January appointed former Monroe Circuit Judge Viola Taliaferro as commissioner, and after three meetings between parties she found on March 28 that United Financial had failed without good cause to pay refunds to 346 customers. The company had 15 days from the date of that order to issue refunds to those individuals.

But the two lawsuits pick up where the ISBA suit left off. The first lawsuit, Donald A. Bonnell and Wayne L. Landes v. United Financial Systems Corporation, No. 25C01-1101-PL-00051, was filed in January in Fulton County by Logansport law firm Starr Austen & Miller. A second suit is Richard L. Kennard v. United Financial Systems Corporation, No. 49C01-1103-PL-010470, filed March 16 in Marion County by law firm Cohen & Malad. The suits allege constructive fraud, contractual claim violations, conversion, and disgorgement of fees due to UPL.•

Rehearing "Court orders refunds in estate planning UPL case" IL Jan. 5-18, 2011

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT