ILNews

SCOTUS won't take Indiana UPL case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Supreme Court of the United States won’t reconsider a significant unauthorized practice of law case ruled on by the Indiana Supreme Court earlier this year.

On Oct. 4, the nation’s top court denied a writ of certiorari in the case of State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551, leaving intact the state justices’ per curiam ruling from April involving the Indiana State Bar Association’s UPL action against Indianapolis-based estate-planning services company United Financial Systems.

The ISBA in October 2008 accused United Financial of operating an illegal trust mill operation, and the justices determined that UPL had occurred. The court ordered the company to stop engaging in any conduct that might be considered UPL and said that the company should have been on notice about the unauthorized nature of its conduct after a previous ruling in 2006. The justices also ruled that the ISBA is entitled to certain statutory attorney fees and that the fees United Financial Services received because of its UPL should be returned.

Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale represented the ISBA on the matter, and Indianapolis attorney Ron Elberger with Bose McKinney & Evans filed the SCOTUS request on United Financial’s behalf in July. The court took the matter into consideration for its Sept. 27 conference before denying the petition in the first week of the court’s new term.
 

Rehearing " Justices rule company engaged in UPL in trust mill case" IL April 28-May11, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT