In the Matter of Justin R. Wall
2017 Ind. LEXIS 338
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Justin R. Wall, admitted 2008, contracted with Consumer Attorney Services, P.A. (CAS), a Florida company offering mortgage-modification and foreclosure-defense services, to provide limited Indiana-local attorney services.
- CAS performed most intake, document preparation, and client communication from Florida; local counsel (including Wall) were paid small flat fees for discrete tasks and sometimes a $25 “partner” payment for referrals.
- CAS charged clients substantial nonrefundable retainers (~$1,200) and recurring monthly fees (often $400–$1,300) that were not tied to the amount of legal services performed.
- The Disciplinary Commission alleged multiple ethics violations arising from Wall’s role; a hearing officer made mixed findings; both parties sought review by the Indiana Supreme Court.
- The Court reviewed the record de novo and found Wall violated rules on improper fee division (Rule 1.5(e)), assisting unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(a)), and assisting in charging unreasonable fees (Rules 8.4(a) and 1.5(a)); other charges were dismissed.
- Sanction: 30-day suspension starting June 14, 2017, with automatic reinstatement; costs assessed to Wall.
Issues
| Issue | Commission's Argument | Wall's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wall failed to consult clients about the limited scope of representation (Rules 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(5)) | CAS agreements did not fully disclose division of labor; clients were uninformed | Wall testified he disclosed scope during welcome calls and did additional work beyond payment | No violation — Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence; hearing officer credited Wall’s testimony |
| Whether Wall improperly split fees with CAS (Rule 1.5(e)) | Fees were effectively split without required written client consent | Wall contended he was part of CAS/treated as same firm or an employee/partner | Violation — Court found Wall was not “in the same firm” as CAS and Rule 1.5(e) applied |
| Whether Wall assisted CAS in charging or collecting unreasonable fees (Rules 1.5(a), 8.4(a)) | CAS charged excessive nonrefundable retainers and recurring fees; Wall participated in the model | Wall argued he rarely saw final bills and performed meaningful legal work | Violation — Wall knew of large nonrefundable retainers and minimal local counsel pay; assisted in charging unreasonable fees |
| Whether Wall assisted CAS in unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(a)) | CAS’s model marginalized attorney role; using panel attorneys enabled unauthorized practice; Wall’s participation aided CAS | Wall argued he provided meaningful services, sometimes beyond contract, and CAS paralegals were supervised by a Florida attorney | Violation — Court concluded CAS’s business model amounted to unauthorized practice and Wall assisted in it |
| Whether Wall engaged in dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rules 8.4(c), 8.4(d)) | Commission urged findings based on misleading “partner” label and use of Wall’s letterhead | Wall argued no intent to deceive and he identified himself by his own firm name | No violation — Court found insufficient evidence of intent to deceive or of prejudice to the administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Consumer Attorney Services, P.A. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. 2017) (considered CAS’s business model and civil liability under consumer statutes)
- Matter of Jackson, 24 N.E.3d 419 (Ind. 2015) (approved discipline for another CAS-associated attorney)
- Matter of Smith, 60 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. 2016) (addressed fee-splitting and related firm-status analysis)
- Matter of O’Farrell, 942 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2011) (discussed limits on nonrefundable retainers)
- State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. United Financial Systems Corp., 926 N.E.2d 8 (Ind. 2010) (found company’s business model marginalized attorneys and constituted unauthorized practice)
- Matter of Dilk, 2 N.E.3d 1263 (Ind. 2014) (suspension for attorney’s role in similar out-of-state foreclosure-defense scheme)
- Matter of Joyce, 9 N.E.3d 142 (Ind. 2014) (discipline for attorney involved in related business-model practices)