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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT