Florida Supreme Court Is Closely Divided In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Decision

Published date19 November 2021
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Technology, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, New Technology
Law FirmHolland & Knight
AuthorKatelin Stephens, Nellie Q. Barnard and Peter R. Jarvis

The relationship between access to justice and the unauthorized practice of law was explored in the Florida Supreme Court's recent 4-3 decision that a traffic ticket app developed by a startup amounted to the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

The app, TIKD, connected qualifying ticketed drivers to Florida lawyers who were hired and paid by TIKD to represent the drivers. If the drivers and lawyers agreed to proceed, TIKD would charge the driver a percentage of the ticket's face value while paying the lawyer a flat fee and paying any court costs or fines assessed to the driver.

The Court's Decision

In an opinion signed by three members of the seven-member court, with a fourth concurring in the result, the 4-3 majority concluded that TIKD's conduct constituted UPL under Florida law. Using the framework applied in State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), vacated on other grounds by 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the majority concluded that TIKD had engaged in UPL due to what the majority considered an impermissible degree of control by TIKD over the attorneys hired to represent the drivers, finding specifically that:

  • TIKD screened all traffic tickets and selected which matters and correspondingly which legal issues, got assigned to an attorney, as well as the timing of that assignment.
  • TIKD's Terms of Service, not a licensed attorney designated when an attorney-client relationship was initiated.
  • The fee paid to each attorney was set and collected by TIKD.
  • The contract TIKD entered into with each attorney required that the attorney provide legal services in accordance with the "TIKD Guidelines," which "describe the Attorney's responsibilities in providing Services to each [driver]."

The majority also expressed additional concerns, including the potential for the app to impact the quality and timeliness of legal services provided to drivers, the potential for conflict between TIKD's interest in profits and the lawyer's ethical obligation to act in the client's best interest, and the fact that funds held by TIKD, as a nonlawyer, would not be held in a trust account. The majority would thus appear to have focused on what it considered an unacceptable "bifurcation of responsibilities between lawyers and nonlawyers with respect to the provision of legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT