ILNews

Report issued in UPL claim on trust mill case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has never determined whether the money spent during the prosecution of an Unauthorized Practice of Law claim fits into the "costs and expenses incurred by such a hearing" category, which means that a losing party pays under Administrative Disciplinary Rule 24.

Justices may now have that chance as they consider whether an estate planning company engaged in unlawful legal work.

Presenting an issue of first impression, a special commissioner on Monday submitted an 88-page report to the state's highest court regarding a UPL claim brought by the ISBA last October in a trust mill case, State of Indiana, Ex Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Services, et al., No. 94S00-0810-MS-551.

ISBA initiated the action against estate planning service United Financial Systems in Indianapolis, accusing it of operating a trust mill that engaged in unauthorized practice of law and wrongly collecting more than $1 million from at least five families throughout the state. A total of five counts are made in ISBA's action - one for each person or couple who bought an estate-planning package with United Financial.

In March, Senior Judge Bruce Embrey from Miami Superior Court was brought on as a special commissioner to consider the facts in this case. He held an out-of-court, two-day trial in late May and has now given his findings to the state's justices to determine whether any UPL occurred.

As part of his 266 findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Embrey noted that between October 2006 and March 29, 2009, about 0.09 percent of United Financial's total income from all national operations came from estate planning assistance in Indiana; 18.8 percent of the fee income generated nationally came from Indiana estate planning services.

Aside from requests that United Financial permanently stop any UPL in Indiana, ISBA also asks that the Supreme Court order a disgorgement of fees and reimbursement of money collected by the company to those people affected.

Judge Embrey notes that ISBA has never settled a UPL case in exchange for money from an individual or corporation accused of violating the state provisions, and that no costs or fees have been received by ISBA in the course of processing these cases.

In the instant case, ISBA paid about $25,882 to various vendors for copies and transcripts, and paid an attorney who testified in rebuttal to the company's evidence. ISBA also paid $11,093 to Indianapolis law firm Bingham McHale for legal counsel on this case, copies, long-distance phone calls, and other routine office expenses. The report details nearly $36,975 in expenses.

However, Judge Embrey points out that the terms "costs and expenses incurred by such a hearing" in the context of Administrative Disciplinary Rule 24, which are to be paid by the losing party, have not been defined by the court.

"Including the cost to the ISBA of engaging counsel to prosecute a UPL claim pursuant to Rule 24 is a matter of first impression," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT