ILNews

Justices rule company engaged in UPL in trust mill case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Not every court decision can be held out as one that either protects or chips away at the foundation of the practice of law.

But those are the themes being bounced back and forth after an April 14 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court about estate planning services and the unauthorized practice of law.

One side says the court has reinforced that non-attorneys aren't allowed to give anything that resembles legal advice and if they do, the penalties can be sharp. Meanwhile, the company found to have engaged in UPL and hit with a disgorgement order says the decision will harm consumers and make it more difficult for people to maneuver the legal issues involved in estate planning.

Ruling per curiam, justices issued a significant UPL decision in State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551. The court heard oral arguments in December, and by all accounts the ISBA won this UPL action against Indianapolis-based estate-planning services company, United Financial Systems Corp.

In October 2008, ISBA filed the action against United Financial Systems and accused it of operating a trust mill operation that engaged in unauthorized practice of law and wrongly collected more than a $1 million from at least five families throughout the state. The company argued that it hadn't been engaged in UPL, and that it's made changes in recent years to correct whatever activity might have been interpreted that way.

Justices named Senior Judge Bruce Embrey from Miami Superior Court as a special commissioner on the case. After a hearing last year, he issued a report with 266 findings last summer for the high court's review. Justices heard arguments in December, ultimately taking the matter under advisement for about four months before its recent decision against United Financial Systems.

"We are convinced, however, that UFSC's business model has marginalized the attorney's role to such a degree as to cross the line of permissible practices," the court wrote. "We are also convinced that the changes UFSC indicates it has made to its business model in Indiana since the filing of the verified petition are cosmetic at best and are not remotely sufficient to prevent its business model from running afoul of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law."

Justices ordered the Indianapolis-based company to stop engaging in any conduct that might be considered UPL, and that the company should have been on notice about the unauthorized nature of its conduct after a previous ruling in 2006. The justices also ruled that the ISBA is entitled to certain statutory attorney fees and that disgorgement of the fees United Financial Services received because of its UPL should be returned.

Deciding on relief, the court relied on its past decision in State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. Northouse, 848 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2006), that addressed the issue of disgorgement - or returning the ill-gotten fees.

"Notwithstanding the potential availability of other civil remedies, we believe the disgorgement or a similar form of restitutionary remedy serves as a more reliable and effective deterrent against the unauthorized practice of law," the court wrote. "Persons or companies should be deterred from the unauthorized practice of law irrespective of the actual harm their conduct may cause, and the fact that some of the persons who have purchased estate plans from UFSC may have received a product adequate for their needs does not alter the illegality of UFSC's conduct."

By order, the company must notify all of its Indiana estate plan customers since 1995, as well as those since the Northouse ruling in 2006 about possibly receiving money back.

The justices also found against the ISBA in its argument that Administrative Disciplinary Rule 24 should be expanded to include attorneys fees for the "costs and expenses," finding that Indiana Code 34-52-1-1 permits an award of attorney fees in civil actions that occur because of the claims.

The ISBA may get a portion of the $19,500 it spent on attorney fees directly stemming from United Financial Systems' claims about past and current settlements, but that is up to Judge Embrey to determine on remand. The commissioner will also determine what amount the ISBA should get from the $11,093 in costs for ISBA's counsel for copying, phone calls, and other routinely billed legal expenses as well as from the $25,882 the ISBA paid directly to various vendors for copies and transcripts, as well costs to an attorney who rebutted United Financial's expert about the legitimacy of its business model.

All of the justices agreed, except Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard noted that he would have granted ISBA's request for fees incurred in this prosecution.

Most of the financial aspects of the case return to Judge Embrey to decide, and attorneys say he hasn't yet set any hearings on those issues.

Attorney Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale represented the ISBA, and praised the court's decision.

"This opinion makes it crystal clear what the court's view is on non-lawyer's engaging in that practice of writing wills and trusts, that people may not legally understand," McGoff said.

He noted the disgorgement decision is significant but it's also worthwhile to note how the company's principals were also held personally responsible - he doesn't recall seeing that before.

While the ISBA did lose on its Rule 24 argument about attorney fees being included in "costs and expenses," McGoff said it's difficult to be too disappointed in that aspect.

"The point of the suit was to stop them from engaging in UPL, and now there's a very clear directive that this is prohibited," he said. "We have a bright-line rule, and that's very significant because of the belief that it's part of the bar's obligation is to protect the sanctity of our legal profession from those who might be performing UPL."

Indianapolis attorney Ronald Elberger with Bose McKinney & Evans, who represented United Financial Systems, declined to offer any legal analysis or comment about the significance of the court's decision outside this case. Instead, he deferred to a written statement offered by the company a week after the ruling.

Mostly, the statement criticized the justices' and Judge Embrey's handling of the case and denied that any UPL activity had occurred. The statement defended its conduct and noted that it never prepared legal documents, and that it repeatedly informed customers it wasn't a law firm and that it wasn't providing legal advice. United Financial Systems said the case stems from a longstanding effort to root competitors from the marketplace because they offer more affordable estate-planning services.

"The decision, supposedly designed to protect the state's consumers, actually reduces their choices for estate planning, and increases the cost of these services," the company statement says. "The ripple effects of this decision stand to be felt across the marketplace in Indiana. Any non-lawyer, whether an insurance agent or agency, investment adviser, educational institution or philanthropic entity, may stand accused of practicing law without a license if the lawyer to whom they hand over that client or donor ultimately charges a fee the Bar Association feels is too low."

Describing the ruling as a regrettable "defeat for the interest of Indiana's working families," the company's statement adds: "Indiana's consumers are now left with even fewer helping hands in navigating the often intimidating and expensive world of legal services. Many will likely find the prospect of retaining an estate planning attorney impossible, either because the process is too unnerving or because they are simply priced out of the market."

Hoosier estate planning attorneys discount that claim about fewer options, saying the state has certified that area as a specialty in recent years and that pretty much every bar association has referral networks for attorneys to help in those complicated areas of the law.

"I find it hard to believe that there's a lack of knowledge in the marketplace, or that there's a real problem with people being able to obtain this type of legal service," said Indianapolis attorney Bill Pope, who leads the estate planning group at Barnes & Thornburg. "It's a matter of safeguarding the public, and there's no justification for having unlicensed lay people out recommending these legal estate plans. If this hadn't been discovered, it would have been disastrous for even more people."

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT