The Florida Bar v. TIKD Services LLC, A Foreign Limited Liability Company, and Christopher Riley, individually and as Founder of TIKD Services, LLC
SC18-149
| Fla. | Oct 14, 2021Background
- The Florida Bar petitioned to enjoin TIKD Services, LLC and its founder Christopher Riley for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; a referee granted summary judgment for TIKD and recommended dismissal.
- TIKD operates a website/app that screens uploaded traffic tickets, charges customers a fee (a percentage of the ticket face value), and, if it accepts a matter, forwards the client’s contact and ticket to a Florida-licensed attorney under contract.
- TIKD sets and collects the fee, pays the contracted attorney a flat rate, promises to pay fines/court costs on the client’s behalf, and refunds customers if points are assessed; its Terms of Service state it will hire an attorney on the user’s behalf and designate when attorney-client relationships begin.
- The referee concluded TIKD provided only administrative/financial services and delegated all substantive legal work to licensed attorneys; the Bar objected and the Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo.
- The Supreme Court disapproved the referee, held TIKD engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and permanently enjoined TIKD and Riley from such conduct, citing the Sperry factors and precedent condemning nonlawyer entities that market or control legal services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (The Florida Bar) | Defendant's Argument (TIKD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TIKD’s business model constitutes the unauthorized practice of law | TIKD markets and sells legal services, screens matters, controls intake, sets fees, and thus practices law without a license | TIKD only provides technology, matching, and a financial guarantee; licensed attorneys provide all legal advice and representation | Held: TIKD’s model constitutes unauthorized practice — nonlawyer control/marketing of legal services prohibited |
| Whether TIKD’s advertising/representations hold it out as offering legal services | Advertising promises legal representation and solicits drivers; likely to lead reasonable persons to treat TIKD as offering legal services | TIKD discloses it is not a law firm, that attorneys handle legal matters, and does not give individualized legal advice | Held: Advertising and described services are reasonably likely to be perceived as legal-service offerings; supports unauthorized-practice finding |
| Whether third‑party payment rules (Bar Rules 4‑1.8(f), 4‑5.4(d)) permit TIKD’s fee collection/payments | TIKD’s retention and designation of client funds and control over fee allocation is not merely third‑party payment and does not supplant regulated trust obligations | TIKD says it effectively pays attorneys on clients’ behalf and disclosure/informed consent suffice | Held: Those professional‑conduct rules govern lawyers, not the boundary of the practice of law; TIKD’s fee structure does not insulate it from unauthorized‑practice concerns and raises trust/protection issues |
| Whether TIKD’s profit motive and contractual control over attorneys creates risks/conflicts and evades Bar supervision | Nonlawyer control and the profit incentive create inherent conflicts, supervisory gaps, and public‑protection risks | TIKD argues market arrangements (matching, financing, referral) are common and do not grant it control over legal services; no evidence of harm | Held: Profit motive, intake control, fee-setting, and contractual guidelines give TIKD meaningful control and create substantial risk to clients — public protection requires injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fla. Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962) (test for when advice/performance of legal services by nonlawyers constitutes practice of law)
- Fla. Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980) (Court’s authority to prohibit unlicensed practice and protect public)
- Fla. Bar v. Consolidated Bus. & Legal Forms, Inc., 386 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1980) (nonlawyer corporation marketing and controlling legal services enjoined)
- Fla. Bar re Advisory Opinion—Medicaid Planning Activities by Nonlawyers, 183 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 2015) (nonlawyer companies that select and collect fees for legal strategies may be practicing law)
- Fla. Bar v. Gold, 937 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2006) (de novo review of referee’s summary-judgment ruling in Bar disciplinary context)
- Fla. Bar v. Rapoport, 845 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2003) (procedure and standards for appellate review of referee findings)
- Fla. Bar v. Becerra, 661 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1995) (enjoining advertising likely to lead reasonable person to believe provider can render legal services)
- Fla. Bar v. Neiman, 816 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2002) (purpose of prohibiting unlicensed practice is public protection from unqualified advisors)
- Fla. Bar v. Schramek, 616 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1993) (enjoining nonlawyer kit/publishers when materials amounted to actual practice of law)
- Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (no attorney-client relationship without client consultation/contact)