Category Archives: TIKD US DOJ Statement of Interest no Bar immunity

Referee recommends dismissal of Florida Bar UPL Petition against TIKD and oral argument has been scheduled before Supreme Court

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert with an update on the status of The Florida Bar’s Petition alleging that the TIKD business model constitutes UPL and discuss the referee’s report recommending dismissal of the petition and the oral argument scheduled for March 2020.  The case is: The Florida Bar v. TIKD Services LLC and Christopher Riley, Case No.: SC18-149, Lower Tribunal No(s).: 20174035 (11B); 20174045 (11B).  The January 19, 2019 report of referee recommending dismissal is here: https://www.responsivelaw.org/uploads/1/0/8/6/108638213/report_of_referee.pdf and the Florida Supreme Court’s Order scheduling oral argument for March 4, 2020 is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/149/2018-149_order_239445_a01g.pdf

As I previously blogged, the TIKD internet application permits a ticketed person to upload a photo of the ticket and pay a fixed amount.  TIKD then retains an attorney to represent that person and, if he or she is ultimately is assessed with points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and also pays the cost of the ticket.

The TIKD business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by an individual.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be (or were) in violation of various Florida Bar ethics rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.  TIKD stated that its services fully comply with Florida Bar ethics rules and that lawyers who represent the individuals receive a flat fee and are independent practitioners “over whom TIKD does not exercise any direction or control.”

On January 23, 2018, The Florida Bar filed a Petition Against the Unlicensed Practice of Law against TIKD and its founder, Christopher Riley.  The Petition alleged, inter alia, that TIKD and Riley “advertise in a fashion which may lead a reasonable lay person to believe Respondents are qualified to offer legal services to the public”, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services for a fixed price along with an offer to pay all fines and court costs with a money-back guarantee” and, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services while suggesting that their services are the equivalent of or a substitute for the services of an attorney.”

The Bar’s Petition requested the Court to find that the alleged conduct constitutes the Unlicensed Practice of Law and issue a permanent injunction “preventing and restraining Respondents from engaging in the acts complained of and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida, until such time as Respondent Riley is duly licensed to practice law in this state.”  TIKD filed an Answer and motions and a referee was assigned.

On January 24, 2019, after the parties filed motions and a status hearing was held, the referee issued her report.  The report of referee states:

“After a careful review of the portions of TIKD’s website submitted by The Florida Bar and TIKD’s Terms of Service, including the FAQ’s and the prominent disclaimers in the Terms of Service, I find that the materials do not constitute legal advice, and do not represent that Respondents are attorneys or competent to handle legal matters. TIKD provides a service and its customers pay for the convenience

the service offers. No reasonable person could conclude, based on the evidence submitted to the Referee, that TIKD or Riley hold themselves out as providers of legal services.”

“Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Referee recommends that the Supreme Court of Florida dismiss all claims alleged against Respondents with prejudice, enter judgment in favor of Respondents.”

TIKD also filed a lawsuit against The Florida Bar in the U.S. Federal Court, Southern District of Florida, alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations.  That case has been settled.

The Florida UPL matter will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida and the Court will issue an opinion after the March 4, 2020 oral argument.

Bottom line:  The TIKD business model implicates the traditional and longstanding prohibitions against the unlicensed practice of law and lawyers splitting fees with non-lawyers.  The referee did not agree that the model constituted UPL or fee splitting we will see what the Florida Supreme Court says after the March 4, 2020 oral argument.  I will be watching it.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida Bar, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Bar v. TIKD - Florida Supreme Court oral argument, Florida Bar v. TIKD- referee report recommending dismissal of Bar UPL Petition, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, TIKD -Florida Bar UPL petition w Florida Supreme Court, TIKD UPL, TIKD UPL Bar request for Florida Supreme Court injunction, TIKD US DOJ Statement of Interest no Bar immunity, Uncategorized

U.S. DOJ files Statement in TIKD in federal lawsuit arguing that Florida Bar is not immune from Sherman antitrust allegations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert Update which will discuss the recent (March 12, 2018) Statement of Interest filed by the United States Department of Justice arguing that The Florida Bar is not immune or exempt from antitrust under the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  The case is TIKD Services LLC, v. The Florida Bar, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-24103-MGC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida-Miami Division).  The Statement of Interest is available on the PACER federal document system here:  https://www.pacer.gov/login.html (subscription required).

As I previously blogged, TIKD Services, LLC filed the federal lawsuit against The Florida Bar, the Ticket Clinic law firm, and other individuals in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida on November 8, 2017.  The TIKD app allows an individual who has received a traffic citation to upload a photo of the citation and pay a fixed fee and TIKD retains an attorney to represent that individual.  If the individual receives points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and pays the cost of the ticket.  The business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by the individual.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be in violation of Florida Bar disciplinary rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.  A complaint was filed with The Florida Bar by members of the law firm alleging that TIKD was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).  That complaint is currently pending and the Bar has recommended further proceedings.

TIKD then filed the federal lawsuit court alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations.  The defendants include The Florida Bar, attorney Mark S. Good, who founded The Ticket Clinic law firm, and other individuals.  According to the federal Complaint, The Florida Bar advised TIKD that it was opening an unlicensed practice of law investigation into the company’s activities after the company was featured in a Miami Herald story and a few months later, attorneys with The Ticket Clinic threatened to report two of TIKD’s lawyers to The Florida Bar if they continued to work with TIKD.

A state lawsuit was filed and was settled; however, TIKD alleges in the federal Complaint that The Florida Bar and the Ticket Clinic law firm continued to make a “concerted effort” to put it out of business, and that the firm’s lawyers continued filing “baseless ethics complaints” against attorneys who represent TIKD customers.

A recent (February 21, 2018) Motion for Sanctions filed by the Ticket Clinic law firm alleged, inter alia, that The Florida Bar has immunity, which immunized the individual defendants, that the individuals have immunity on other grounds, that the lawsuit is frivolous on other grounds, and that the lawsuit should be dismissed and the Plaintiffs should be sanctioned.

On March 12, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest stating that The Florida Bar is not immune from federal or state antitrust liability under the Sherman Act as an arm of the state based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  According to the statement:

“The Florida Bar defendants assert, as one ground for their motion to dismiss, that they are entitled to protection against Sherman Act claims by the state-action doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), without having to satisfy either the “clear articulation” or “active supervision” requirements of that doctrine. That position is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s most recent state-action decision, N. Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015), clarified the state-action doctrine with respect to state agencies that regulate learned professions. It requires that the Bar, if “controlled by active market participants,” id. at 1114, must satisfy the clear articulation and active supervision requirements in order to obtain state-action protection.”

Bottom line:  As I have previously blogged, this is one of the first cases filed in Florida (and possible in any jurisdiction) which directly alleges that a State Bar’s procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act in reliance upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  The Statement of Interest filed by the U.S. Department of Justice agrees with that analysis and argues that it is correct.  Stay tuned…

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar antitrust, Bar regulation and antitrust, BAR UPL antitrust, Florida Bar, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer assisting unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer assisting unlicensed practice of law (UPL), Lawyer assisting UPL, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL, TIKD UPL Bar request for Florida Supreme Court injunction, TIKD US DOJ Statement of Interest no Bar immunity, TIKD v Florida Bar Motion for Sanctions, TIKD v. Florida Bar antitrust federal lawsuit, U.S. Constitution and UPL regulation- professional speech and application of UPL rules, U.S. Supreme Court