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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT