ILNews

Legislative study committee to discuss UPL

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Probate Code Study Commission, which meets for the first time this year on Wednesday, will focus on three items at its meeting, including the unauthorized practice of law.

According to the meeting agenda, commission members will discuss applying the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations law to the unauthorized practice of law by nonattorneys. Currently, a person can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor under Indiana Code 33-43-2 for engaging in UPL. In March, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General filed criminal UPL and tax evasion charges against ‘notario publico’ M. Esther Barber of Indianapolis, alleging she offered immigration-related services without being licensed or trained to do so. The AG’s office obtained permission from the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office to file the Class B misdemeanor engaging in UPL charge. In July, Barber pleaded guilty to two counts of Class D felony income tax evasion and the misdemeanor UPL count.

The members will also consider legislative proposals from the Probate, Trust and Real Property Section of the Indiana State Bar Association, including repealing the inheritance tax law and increasing the time one can probate a foreign will. Section member Jeffrey Kolb of Emison Doolittle Kolb and Roellgen in Vincennes said the the section will also discuss asset protection trusts, giving a standby guardian the power of a guardian and the priority and payment of claims under probate code and Medicaid law.

The study commission will also discuss the sale of a decedent’s real estate to satisfy claims by the Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning and other governmental entities.

The meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. in Room 404 of the Statehouse and will be webcast.

The Indiana Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee meets Thursday at 1 p.m. in Room 431. This meeting will also be webcast. An agenda for the meeting has not been released.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT