Jim Rosica
The Florida Bar is asking the state’s Supreme Court to give it the “W” in a case against an upstart Miami firm that’s allegedly practicing law without a license.
In its case against TIKD, The Bar is requesting for a “judgment on the pleadings,” bypassing oral arguments “when the outcome of the case rests on the court’s interpretation of the law.”
The company hires lawyers to fight people’s traffic tickets for them. If TIKD loses, it pays customers’ fines or court costs.
The Bar maintains that TIKD is in the wrong, in part because founder and CEO Chris Riley — a U.S. Navy commander-turned entrepreneur — isn’t a lawyer but his company advertises and acts like a law firm.
“It is an undisputed material fact that (TIKD) offers legal representation to (its) customers through Florida lawyers to defend their traffic tickets,” the Bar said in a motion filed late Friday.
The company’s “advertising offers the public legal services to resolve their traffic tickets,” says The Bar, which regulates the practice of law and prosecutes the unlicensed practice of law, or UPL.
“It constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer (i.e., Riley) to offer to provide legal services directly to the public,” The Bar’s motion says. “… (A) corporation owned and operated by nonlawyers (can’t) employ an attorney to give legal advice to its customers.”
TIKD’s defense has been the Uber argument: Just as the ride-booking company says it isn’t a transportation concern but a technology company, TIKD has said it’s “a technology platform,” not a law firm, on which customers pay a “fixed, pre-determined charge” to get their cases resolved.
This past Regular Session, TIKD hired Ballard Partners’ Brian Ballard and Mat Forrest to get some legislative relief, but couldn’t get any traction with lawmakers.
No action on the motion had been taken as of Monday morning, court dockets show.
One comment
Larry Gillis (Cape Coral)
April 23, 2018 at 9:29 pm
What took the Florida Bar so long? This ticket platform/firm (or whatever) has been around for quite some time. And, yes, I would expect that the “Judgement on the Pleadings” would be allowed. I mean, the facts are not in dispute and the applicable law is clear. I cannot imagine that additional briefs and some oral arguments would add anything to clarifying the issues that are “in play” here.
Comments are closed.