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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.