In a 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court concluded a company that operated an app which connected traffic ticket defendants to attorneys had engaged in an unauthorized practice of law.
Justices permanently barred the now-defunct company TIKD, which was founded by a nonlawyer, from operating its mobile application in a way that provides defendants with help from a licensed attorney after paying an up-front fee. The court permanently barred the company from engaging in such actions.
The decision comes in the wake of the Florida Bar filing a complaint against TIKD. A referee appointed by the court earlier found that TIKD only offered administrative and financial services and that it appropriately delegated decisions on legal matters to licensed attorneys.
Consumers for a Responsive Legal System Executive Director Tom Gordon
| Consumers for a Responsive Legal System
The high court found that TIKD services had the potential to impair the quality of legal representation consumers receive. In addition, TIKD uses up-front money provided by clients to pay anticipated court costs or fines, the court’s opinion said. In contrast, attorneys would have to put such funds in a trust for the benefit of the client, according to the court.
There are also inherent conflicts and risks when untrained nonlawyers obtain their income from the allocation of legal services, the opinion says.
“TIKD simply lacks the skill or training to ensure the quality of the legal services provided to the public through the licensed attorneys it contracts with,” the justices said.
One of the groups filing amicus briefs in favor of TIKD was the Washington-based Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, which has expressed disappointment in the court’s opinion and its effects on consumers’ access to the legal system.
“It's a setback for consumers,” Tom Gordon, executive director for Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, told the Florida Record, “and I think the court knew it was a setback for consumers because it acknowledged in its opinion that TIKD had not harmed consumers. There were no allegations of harm, and in fact they pointed out that TIKD was on the whole providing some help for the access-to-justice problem in Florida.”
In cases involving a determination of unauthorized practice of law, according to Gordon, court rules and case law tends to be vague, allowing courts to go in any direction they want. The Florida Supreme Court’s explanation of why TIKD’s business model crossed the line and strayed into the practice of law was unclear, he said.
“I’m still not sure exactly what it means,” Gordon said. “The fact that something affects someone’s legal rights does not mean it's a practice of law."
TIKD did not interfere with attorneys’ professional judgments or attempt to manage the attorneys who received referrals from the company, he said.
“The ironic thing about all of this, above the decision itself, is that the Supreme Court said its hands were tied by policies or regulations that were in place,” Gordon said, noting that the court has the ultimate jurisdiction to make changes to such policies.