ILNews

Hearing set for UPL case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Indiana Supreme Court won’t reconsider its 2010 decision ordering United Financial Systems Corp. to refund money for estate planning services it sold, constituting an unauthorized practice of law.

Now, the Indianapolis company faces a June 23-27 hearing before a special commissioner to determine whether it should be held in contempt for not issuing those refunds that state justices have twice ordered. This is the latest in the three-year case of State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 94S00-0810-MS-551.

The justices on May 27 declined to rehear the case, leaving in place the hearings before former Monroe Circuit Judge Viola Taliaferro who’s serving as commissioner. She determined in March that United Financial had failed without good cause to pay refunds to 346 customers, and on May 25 she set hearing dates to determine what contempt sanctions should be imposed. All 11 individual respondents must personally appear at the hearings to answer the commissioner’s questions and discuss evidence, the order states.

She ordered United Financial to turn over company information on past customers, as well as company tax returns and financial documentation. The discovery will be limited to the parties in this suit and not be released to third parties, and any experts who see the discovery will be subject to confidentiality, according to the order. Attorney fees will be addressed at the hearing, an issue that United Financial intends to challenge as not being reasonable.

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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT