The Florida Bar v. Tikd Services Llc,

Facts

P filed a two-count petition against D alleging that it engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that it held itself out to the public via its website and advertisements as qualified to provide legal services. A referee was appointed to consider the petition. D is not a law firm, and its chief executive officer, Christopher Riley (D), is not a member of the Bar. D operates a website and mobile application through which a driver can receive legal assistance in the resolution of a traffic ticket. A driver who receives a traffic ticket can request services by creating an account with D via its website, agreeing to its Terms of Service, and uploading a picture of his or her traffic ticket. D analyzes the ticket to determine whether it should provide any services to the driver. If D declines, the driver is notified, and he or she is not charged a fee. If D accepts a ticket, the driver is charged a percentage of the ticket's face value, and his or her contact information is forwarded to a Florida-licensed attorney whom D has contracted with to provide traffic ticket defense services to its customers. All costs associated with defending the traffic ticket are paid by D, including any court costs or assessed fines. D does not guarantee that a driver's case will be resolved favorably and provides a full refund if points are ultimately assessed against a driver's license. The drivers authorize D to hire an independent licensed attorney on their behalf to represent them on all matters concerning the license plate number and traffic ticket number. The attorneys D contracts with are paid a flat rate per case, regardless of the case's outcome. The fee paid to each attorney is set by D and is paid from the fee it collects from each driver. Each attorney is free to accept or decline the representation of any driver, and drivers are likewise free to accept or decline representation from any attorney. If representation is accepted, the attorney communicates directly with the driver and handles all aspects of his or her ticket defense case. The referee determined that D is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that it does not advertise in a way that would lead a reasonable person to believe it is offering legal services to the public. The referee held that D provides only administrative and financial services and that its payment of attorney's fees on behalf of drivers did not convert its services into the practice of law. There was no evidence D's services place the public at risk of being advised or represented by unqualified persons in legal matters. P filed an objection to the referee's report.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.