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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT