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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT