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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT