Florida Ticket App Case Arguments Spotlight Access to Justice

Florida lawyers offered the state’s Supreme Court contrasting characterizations of smartphone app that helps drivers dispute traffic tickets, leaving judges divided Wednesday over whether the software enables the unauthorized practice of law.

The TIKD app aids drivers in finding an attorney who can go to court and argue for a reduction in fine or dismissal of the citation.

Attorney James J. McGuire, told the court on Wednesday that the app violates rules barring non-lawyer businesses from making money solely off the law.

TIKD’s business model is about generating as much money as it can, said McGuire, an attorney with Tampa’s Thomas & LoCicero, arguing on behalf of the friend-of-the-court Florida Private Practice Attorneys.

“It’s a casino-sort of business,” he said.

TIKD is what an access to justice solution looks like, countered Christopher M. Kise of Foley & Lardner’s Tallahassee office, who represents the TIKD and its founder Christopher Riley.

TIKD uses technology to provide its users with access to licensed attorneys to handle their cases, Kise said.

“The only people who have an incentive to do this are technological innovators,” he said.

But Florida case precedent says that if a business entity gets all its income from law, it’s engaged in the practice of law, Chief Justice Charles T. Canady said.

The chief justice said he wasn’t “unsympathetic” with TIKD’s position. “We need to be innovative with regard to providing access to justice,” he said but admitted that he was “struggling” with the issue of practicing law without a license.

But there’s a difference between providing services and facilitating services, Kise told Canady. “What TIKD doing is what insurance companies do every day,” he said.

In filings with the Florida Supreme Court, TIKD compared its contracts with independent law firms to those of a liability insurance carrier that retains and pays attorneys to represent customers who pay premiums.

Here, licensed, independent attorneys not controlled by TIKD are delivering legal advice, Kise said. TIKD merely facilitates the connection between a client and an attorney, he said. And there’s no evidence of harm to clients who have used the app, he said.

He also pointed out that the Florida Bar is considering a rule that would authorizes what TIKD does, which is a “curiosity.” The rule would allow online service providers to match lawyers and clients, set the fee, and remit the fee, he said.

The bar “thinks this conduct is OK,” Kise said.

In his rebuttal on behalf of the Florida Bar, Chris W. Altenbernd of Banker Lopez Gassler in Tampa, disputed the insurance analogy, saying it’s a “regulated industry.”

A state circuit judge appointed by the state’s highest court to be a referee in the case has recommended dismissing the bar’s claims.

“The fact that TIKD, rather than the customer, pays the attorney does not convert TIKD’s services into the practice of law. It is permissible for a third party to pay an attorney on behalf of a client, if the relationship is disclosed,” Florida 11th Circuit Judge Teresa Pooler wrote in a January 2019 report to the court.

TIKD has paused its traffic ticket service pending the outcome of the arguments.

- With assistance from Jennifer Kay

The case is The Florida Bar vs. TIKD LLC, Fla., No. SC18-149, argued 3/4/20.