ILNews

Justices consider 'costs' in UPL action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana State Bar Association wants the state's highest court to define the term "costs and expenses" as it's never done before, and in doing so order a company being prosecuted for the Unauthorized Practice of Law to have to pay those fees and disgorge any profits it shouldn't have made in the first place.

Hearing arguments today in State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551, justices considered an issue of first impression on how far its scope extends in interpreting Administrative Disciplinary Rule 24, and what statutory considerations are involved in this litigation about whether an estate planning company engaged in unlawful legal work.

The ISBA initiated the action in October 2008 against estate planning service United Financial Systems in Indianapolis, accusing it of operating a trust mill operation that engaged in unauthorized practice of law and wrongly collected more than $1 million from at least five families located throughout the state. Acting as special commissioner in the case, Senior Judge Bruce Embrey from Miami Superior Court issued a report in July to the Indiana Supreme Court that included 266 findings and conclusions of law about the company's practice, and after supplemental briefing the justices set the matter for oral argument.

What's at issue in this case is an ISBA request for a disgorgement of fees and reimbursement of the unlawful money the company collected. The organization paid almost $36,965 in legal expenses on this case, according to court records.

The ISBA has never settled a UPL case in exchange for money from an individual or corporation accused of violating the state provisions, and no costs or fees have ever been received by the ISBA in the course of processing these cases, according to Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff who represents the state bar association.

"The bar believes that 'costs and expenses' hasn't been previously defined, and we think that attorney fees should be included here in this case," McGoff told the justices, pointing out that ISBA is only one of the three Indiana entities able to prosecute a UPL action but that it doesn't have any staff to handle those issues as the Attorney General's Office and Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission have. "Given the uniqueness of these proceedings... this would be an exception that wouldn't be a blanket rule that goes outside UPL cases. This wouldn't open the floodgates."

United Financial attorney Suzanna Hartzell-Baird with Bose McKinney & Evans argued that neither amount is appropriate in this case, and ordering any attorney fees or disgorgement would conflict with common law and precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court - specifically because it would be considered a sanction, and the company had received no notice so this goes against ex post facto law present in criminal cases. The company wasn't aware that could be possible when it engaged in litigation, so that might have influenced the decision to litigate, she said. She also disagreed with the commissioner's findings that United Financial had engaged in any frivolous or baseless claims, something she challenged justices to determine for themselves in reviewing the record.

Ordering disgorgement and awarding attorneys fees would have a chilling effect, Hartzell-Baird said.

Justices wondered about the implications this could have on the traditional American rule of not awarding these attorneys fees as part of the costs and expenses, and if it should be considered a cost of doing business. Justices Theodore Boehm and Frank Sullivan pondered whether disgorgement is considered a penalty, as Hartzell-Baird contended, or whether it was simply a return of money that any company engaged in UPL shouldn't have received in the first place.

Don Lundberg, executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission that's admitted as amicus curiae, urged the court to narrowly craft a rule so that it doesn't impact the Disciplinary Commission or Attorney General's Office in future UPL actions. He also said it's appropriate for the court to exercise disgorgement power since that serves as a deterrent and public protection against future UPL.

This was one of two cases the Supreme Court heard arguments on today. The other was Wayne D. Kubsch v. State of Indiana, No. 71S00-0708-PD-335, a post-conviction relief appeal involving Kubsch's three murder convictions and death sentence.
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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT