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. 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