Opinion ID: 852674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Should Relief Be Granted?

Text: A case is moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court. In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind.1991). Northouse and Ramer insist this Court should dismiss this proceeding for injunctive relief because their conduct in question ended in December 2002 and they both represent they do not intend to sell such documents or give what may be construed as legal advice regarding estate planning in the future. For similar reasons, they argue that even if this case is not moot, the Court should exercise its discretion not to issue an injunction under these circumstances. They cite United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953), which upheld a district court's exercise of discretion in denying an injunction to prevent interlocking corporate directorates where each defendant engaged in no more than one alleged violation of law, the violations ceased after the filing of the lawsuit, and no threatened future violations were alleged. This proceeding is not moot, and an injunction should be issued. [2] Under appropriate circumstances, mootness may warrant dismissal of an action to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law. See State ex rel. Steers v. Meyer, 249 Ind. 493, 233 N.E.2d 242 (1968) (noting the respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding as moot and the Attorney General and Indiana State Bar Association agreed). No such agreement exists here. Moreover, the respondents' representations made after the institution of this original actionthat they do not intend to engage in unauthorized practice of law in the future does not render this proceeding moot. See W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 632, 73 S.Ct. 894 (noting voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot[,] in part, because the defendant is free to return to his old ways). Given that Northouse and Ramer's conduct was not isolated but involved the sale of eight Financial Organization books over the course of several years, an injunction is warranted. Accord Owen, 486 N.E.2d at 1014 (granting injunction prohibiting non-lawyer legal researcher from engaging in unauthorized practice law despite his apology for any misunderstanding and his agreement not to practice law by giving legal advice). We pause to consider the type of relief available in this proceeding. The purpose of a proceeding under Admission and Discipline Rule 24 is not to find fault or assess liability but to protect the public from those not properly licensed or otherwise qualified to act as attorneys. State ex rel. Disciplinary Comm'n v. Crofts, 500 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind.1986). Although the rule uses the terms enjoin and injunction when referring to the relief available and injunctions typically order those to whom they are directed to refrain from doing something, the relief afforded by equity may be extended to compel affirmative action when necessary. Ferrell v. Dunescape Beach Club Condos. Phase I, Inc., 751 N.E.2d 702, 713 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001); see 16 I.L.E. Injunction § 1 (1999) (An injunction is a formal command of the court, directing the person named therein to refrain from doing certain specified acts... or, where the relief is mandatory in form, directing such persons to take certain steps to undo the wrong or injury with which they are charged.). In addition to being prohibited from engaging in future acts of unauthorized practice of law, Northouse and Ramer should be prohibited from retaining the fees that they have collected from the sale of the eight Financial Organization books containing trusts prepared by STC; in other words, they should refund those fees (if they have not already done so) to those who purchased the books. [3] Such refunds are appropriate to deter similar conduct in the future and, ultimately, to protect the public. A review of the fees charged in various cases indicates that trust marketers have much to gain by advising their clients to purchase living trust documents. In re Mid-America, 927 S.W.2d at 863 (reviewing fees typically charged for preparation of trust documents). It would send a much less effective message if this Court were to prohibit non-lawyers from engaging in future acts of unauthorized practice of law but, in effect, allow them to retain fees for unauthorized legal services that they have already collected. Finally, we stress that the availability of injunctive relief under Admission and Discipline Rule 24 does not preclude, and should not discourage, the State from filing criminal charges in appropriate cases against those who violate the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law. See Levy v. State, 799 N.E.2d 71 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), trans. denied. A person who: (1) professes to be a practicing attorney; (2) conducts the trial of a case in a court in Indiana; or (3) engages in the business of a practicing lawyer; without first having been admitted as an attorney by the supreme court commits a Class B misdemeanor. Ind.Code § 33-43-2-1 (2004).