Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Still more on: Not everyone is happy with our Supreme Court's unauthorized practice decision
Updating earlier entries (the latest from Oct. 7, 2010) re the Supreme Court's April 14, 2010 opinion finding that "United Financial Systems Corporation and numerous individual respondents (collectively, “UFSC”) have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana," the Court filed this Order yesterday. From p. 2 of the 2-page Order:
Although details regarding the notice requirement and restitutionary process remain to be resolved by the successor commissioner, UFSC thus far has refused to provide refunds even to those persons who have received notice of this Court's opinion and properly demanded a refund from UFSC pursuant to the terms of our previous opinion. UFSC apparently has taken the position that this Court's opinion does not permit the issuance of refunds until the Commissioner issues a restitutionary order. (See UFSC Respondents' Resp. to the ISBA's Renewed Req. for Ruling on Mot. to Recuse Comm'r and for Atty. Conf., at 4). This reading of our opinion is incorrect. Accordingly, UFSC is ORDERED, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, to issue refunds on all claims made to date to UFSC by persons entitled to refunds. Additionally, UFSC is ORDERED, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, to show cause why it should not be ordered to pay interest at the statutory rate on all claims made by persons entitled to a refund, effective from the date the claim was presented to UFSC.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 22, 2010 02:51 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions