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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT