‘Notario’ pleads guilty to tax evasion, illegal law practice
A Marion Superior judge has sentenced an Indianapolis woman who offered illegal immigration services without a law license and evaded paying her income taxes through that business.
Unauthorized practice of law
Articles
Class action alleges UPL
The plaintiffs’ lawyers will use the United Financial decision from the Indiana Supreme Court to make their argument.
Hearing set for UPL case
The Indiana Supreme Court won’t reconsider its 2010 decision ordering United Financial Systems Corp. to refund money for estate planning services it sold, constituting an unauthorized practice of law.
Company hit with class action suits
Two class action lawsuits have been filed against an Indianapolis firm that had offered estate planning services to people. Now, the Indiana Supreme Court is considering what happens next against the company it found a year ago had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Notario publico issues surface again
Years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court made it clear what non-lawyers could and could not do related to immigration services. Crossing the line might be considered the unauthorized practice of law. Now, two people in Indiana are facing the consequences of doing exactly that.
AG files criminal UPL, tax evasion charges against ‘notario publico’
Adding to what it has already done in targeting two “notario publicos” for illegally offering immigration services, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office has now filed a criminal Unauthorized Practice of Law charge and several tax evasion counts against one of those non-lawyers who was operating in Indianapolis.
Law firm files class-action lawsuit for estate planning UPL
A Logansport law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against an Indianapolis company that the state’s highest court last year determined engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law, suing on behalf of thousands of residents for what attorneys estimate could be $10 million to $20 million in damages.
Justices order refunds in estate planning UPL case
The Indiana Supreme Court is shaking its proverbial finger at a company it found had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, making it clear that the court’s orders must be followed or non-compliant litigants will be sanctioned.
SCOTUS won’t take Indiana UPL case
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.
Court issues UPL ruling about ‘general counsel’
A top executive of Celadon Group Inc. can no longer represent himself as the Indianapolis-based trucking company’s attorney
because of a glaring omission – he is not licensed to practice law in Indiana.
Agencies examine UPL
Long before he became Greenwood’s police chief, attorney Joe Pitcher recalls sitting as a special judge in town court and
facing an Unauthorized Practice of Law case that may be one of few like it in Indiana.
Justices rule on trust mill UPL case
The Indiana State Bar Association has won an unauthorized practice of law action against an estate planning services company, but wasn't able to completely sway the state's highest court that all "costs and expenses" should be completely granted for the prosecution of the case.
Justices consider ‘costs’ in UPL action
The Indiana State Bar Association wants the state’s highest court to define the term “costs and expenses” as it’s never done before, and in doing so order a company being prosecuted for the Unauthorized Practice of Law to have to pay those fees and disgorge any profits it shouldn’t have made in the first place.Hearing arguments today in State of Indiana, Ex. Rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., No. 84S00-0810-MS-551, justices considered an issue of first…
Report issued in UPL claim on trust mill case
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.