## Facts

- TIKD Services, LLC operated a website and mobile app offering consumers “legal assistance” for traffic citations.
- Users uploaded citations; TIKD decided whether to accept each ticket and, if accepted, charged the user a portion of the ticket’s face value.
- TIKD then forwarded accepted matters to Florida-licensed attorneys with whom it had contracts, paid those attorneys, and covered defense-related costs.
- TIKD promised a full refund if the matter was not favorably resolved and points were assessed on the driver’s license.
- TIKD and its founder/CEO, Christopher Riley, were not a law firm and were not controlled by Florida-licensed lawyers; Riley was not a member of The Florida Bar.
- The Florida Bar filed a two-count petition alleging unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and improper holding out as qualified to provide legal services.
- A referee granted summary judgment for TIKD, finding it provided administrative/financial services rather than UPL, and recommended dismissal with prejudice.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the referee’s report in an original proceeding seeking an injunction against UPL.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonlawyer-owned and nonlawyer-controlled platform engages in UPL by screening traffic citations, setting consumer pricing and refund terms, retaining and paying lawyers, and interposing itself between consumers and counsel.
2. Whether lack of evidence of actual consumer harm precludes a finding of UPL or an injunction.

## Decision

- The court disapproved the referee’s recommendation and rejected the characterization of TIKD’s conduct as merely administrative and financial.
- The court held that, considered as a whole, TIKD’s model constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
- The court permanently and perpetually enjoined TIKD and Christopher Riley from engaging in such conduct in Florida.

## Legal Principles

- The practice-of-law inquiry focuses on whether conduct involves legal advice/counsel, preparation of instruments affecting legal rights, or work requiring legal skill beyond that of an average citizen.
- Activities must be assessed in the aggregate; a business model may constitute UPL even if individual components appear administrative.
- Nonlawyer entities may not structure services so they control access to counsel, case selection, attorney compensation, or other features that risk interference with lawyers’ independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
- A showing of actual consumer harm is not required; potential or structural risk to the public can justify a UPL finding and injunctive relief.
- Public-protection objectives in regulating the practice of law may outweigh claimed access-to-services benefits of nonlawyer-controlled delivery models.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court concluded that TIKD’s screening of citations, control of financial terms, selection and payment of lawyers, and interposition between clients and counsel amounted to unauthorized practice of law, warranting a permanent injunction despite no proof of actual consumer harm.


Fla. Bar v. TIKD Servs., LLC, 326 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 2021)