ILNews

Justices rule on trust mill UPL case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Bar Association has won an unauthorized practice of law action against an estate planning services company, but wasn't able to completely sway the state's highest court that all "costs and expenses" should be completely granted for the prosecution of the case.

Ruling per curiam this afternoon, the Indiana Supreme Court 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 had heard oral arguments in December.

Justices ordered United Financial Systems, which is based in Indianapolis, 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.

Most of the financial aspects of the case go back to Senior Judge Bruce Embry from Miami Superior Court, who is the commissioner hearing the action.

In October 2008, ISBA filed the action against United Financial 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.

But the justices disagreed.

"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."

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 going back to 1995, as well as those since the Northouse ruling in 2006 about possibly receiving money back.

The justices 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's claims about past and current settlements, but that is up to Judge Embry to determine on remand. The commissioner will also determine what amount of the $11,093 and $25,882 the ISBA should get for other aspects of prosecuting the case.

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

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT