Louisiana State Bar Association VS Carr and Associates, Inc. and Earl T. Carr, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 2114 LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS CARR AND ASSOCIATES INC AND EARL T CARR JR Judgment Rendered On Appeal May 8 2009 from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court No 2006 14440 Honorable William J Burris Charles M Gary Hughes Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Jr Louisiana State Bar Association L Hanes Mandeville LA Henry T Dart Covington LA Jean Paul Counsel for Defendants Layrisson Appellants Steven O Scandurro Carr and Associates Inc and New Orleans LA Earl T Carr Jr BEFORE CARTER J C WHIPPLE AND DOWNING n CARTER C J This involves the trial case court grant of permanent injunctive relief in s favor of the Louisiana State Bar Association insurance adjuster Associates Inc is based Earl T hereafter the trial on Carr Jr and his s and to finding that Carr as affirm the trial we court s a was public Carr and Carr The engaged in the unauthorized practice of law which is strictly prohibited by Louisiana law reasons against public adjusting business collectively referred court the LSBA injunctive For the relief following judgment FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The LSBA initiated this lawsuit several complaints regarding business involves to negotiate a or companies elsewhere Based upon the settlement contact of its percentage based insurers with Carr a fee for its s s and percentage of the after receIvmg activities Carr representative capacity in s order contract to negotiated amount policy recovered for each claim was for its coverage and their improperly public adjusting directly to Carr in the 2 in respective rights regarding aspects used services and made a and 4 payable Louisiana Public claims of and contingency fee The LSBA believed that all of these activities prohibitory language engaged advised and counseled its clients 1 with its clients insurers 3 contingent service is the monetary value of its clients claims send checks licensed attorney in a LSBA became convinced that Carr coverage clients clients violation of a public adjusting practice of law because Carr insurance the clients clients by Carr the terms of their insurance had direct in adjusting employee of Carr is No complaints the the unauthorized 2 insurance contracting with individuals upon and calculated regarding public s 2006 5 settlement of the individual s first party property insurance claims with insurance Louisiana Carr September on instructed its to Carr were Adjuster along in direct Act the 1 LPAA 22 1691 LSA R S formerly cited et seq and constituted the unauthorized seq Therefore the LSBA 37 212 213 a declaratory judgment outlining what activities exceptions raising argued could the argument bring a the on based included standing civil suit the at same of Carr contracts that no cause the trial to 2 represented power of and a filed with the LSBA representative of The LPAA Governor on was by was filed a was ease effective numbering of the at the time that this lawsuit Insurance Code 1 presented was 806 S August filed LP AA The renumbered in 2008 January even 4 as an 1 day We will also of referencing 3 to advertising 1 s clients a private investigator advocate in the insured and was the regarding testimony regarding approved was 2009 represented in order to settle 2006 which was 15 though language an claims and surveillance tape of Acts 2006 No S three the percentage negotiation The Louisiana Insurance Code Acts 2008 No 415 will refer to the current number for 5 June 30 2006 and became effective before this lawsuit renumbered by on fee and copies of given by Carr Carr where Carr is enacted heard a from Carr and several of Carr the fee arrangement and the advice complaints court attorney all indicating that Carr the interests of insured clients in mediation and testimony lawyer and required payment from insurance companies representation and 3 a non Carr court at contingency advised and assisted in the conclusion of insurance losses insurance claims of action The trial statute as a and peremptory time that it received evidence various s Carr and the insured client whom Carr brochure notice of criminal a well as law an answer the activities of regulate The evidence submitted 1 copies compensation to enforce to exceptions preliminary injunction hearing prohibited by objections of no right of action and that the LSBA lacked not were Carr filed petition s et preliminary and permanent injunction Carr from the outlined activities restraining enjoining and prohibiting In response to the LSBA 22 1210 91 of law in violation of LSA R S practice sought LSA R S as amended signed by the several weeks reenacted and this opinion we Throughout renumbering was not in effect of the LP AA was parenthetically not changed when the refer to the former statute client process with its insurers negotiating s of law professor 2006 the trial court LSBA had standing granted preliminary injunction against by unauthorized No appeal from of law and practice The trial that Carr had Carr from a finding that the court also finding that the LSBA had Carr engaged in the specific prohibited activities preliminary injunction the LSBA moved for 2 A few days later on permanent injunction prohibiting Carr engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and from utilizing unauthorized contingent percentage based fee The LSBA contracts testimony and exhibits that had been introduced into injunction hearing the a peremptory exceptions of action no cause the evidence enjoining taken from the 2006 s bring the action for injunctive relief preponderance of a was October 31 to Carr rejected raising the objections of no right of action and established expert testimony from 6 regarding the practice of law and the unauthorized practice of law On October 23 a and Carr bring the s Carr peremptory exceptions for the s no cause action for LSBA to all on the record at the of the preliminary responded by re urging the peremptory exceptions raising objections of no right of action and standing relied of action injunctive same reasons again challenging relief the The trial court denied it overruled them before the preliminary injunction proceeding Trial 2008 date the merits of the permanent on At the trial including the all parties 2008 2 review After this but it bond ruling was Carr denied was held on February on judgment against previously adduced at the applied in favor of the LSBA Carr to The hearing issuing a Supreme Court for a 4 the and on permanent writ of supervisory Louisiana State Bar Association Associates Inc and Earl T Carr Jr 07 0188 on permanent injunction prohibited Carr the Louisiana March 9 2007 21 and submitted the entire record to The trial court took the matter under advisement rendered injunction without stipulations of the evidence preliminary injunction March 25 filed injunction La 3 9 07 unpublished v writ action Carr and 1 from entering Carr that the clients to paid on upon and calculated contingent are agreements with clients that provide for payments into fee 2 insurance claims constitutes the unauthorized enforcing legal remedies law or to settle its clients insurers regarding legal aspects its behalf of its clients clients insurers to along with Carr Carr moved for to this court Carr s the the insurers against the wrong or to insurance establish send checks a directly court the terms or by negotiating with the and claims policies acting right and negotiating with to claims and Carr and made 4 payable 3 trial but that motion a new on establishing and monetary value of its clients clients from the trial raises a liabilities that a manner any direct contact with its clients having of its clients instructing insurance companies to Carr 3 claims prevent over amount counseling clients in limitations coverage insurers on or percentage of the practice of law including giving advice policies rights of insurance advising as a s final judgment following assignments of was denied issuing the error some Carr then appealed permanent injunction of which have 4 been combined 1 The trial court committed exceptions raising the legal error in denying Carr s peremptory objections of no right of action and no cause of action 2 The trial court was manifestly erroneous in ruling against Mr individually as there was a lack of evidence supporting any personal liability against Mr Carr 3 The trial in manifestly allowing expert testimony court was erroneous on in the record and committed matters related to Carr legal error the field of law 3 The permanent injunction judgment to the National Flood Insurance Act silent this 4 regarding declaratory appeal relief also specifically See 42 USC 4001 Those particular aspects Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612 as a matter of right from excluded any flood claims pursuant Additionally the judgment was et seq of the judgment provides that an order or judgment relating to a preliminary 5 are not at issue in appeal may be or final injunction a n taken 4 The trial court because it decision s based was manufactured from a on manifestly was erroneous on entrapment evidence that the merits largely was sting operation LAW AND ANALYSIS Peremptory Exceptions Carr argues that the trial court legally erred peremptory exceptions raising the objections of Initially action LSA C C P we art 928 been denied And Landry So 2d 661 upon was party may re right R G overruling it 1980 adverse prejudicial interlocutory rulings Therefore See granted the permanent injunction Louisiana Inc Rao 05 0059 La 3 24 06 No 05 2025 La La 4 Cir App at any 10 23 02 is La 1 Cir App App a Claitor merely an to v at exception Juban 391 seek review of any appeal that judgment was that AmCare Health Plans of v 1 Cir 10 25 06 4 11 05 Realty s review of the final Wooley 829 stage of the proceeding in this unrestricted to time at any peremptory exception after it has Carr is entitled judgment in addition s of no cause made to set aside that decree and to sustain the 396 taken from the final of action and peremptory exception a So 2d 394 or a urge 02 0822 overruling of that it erred in La right peremptory exception may be urged and the court has the objection finding a a Blaise Inc v The 664 interlocutory order which the that note no when it twice overruled Carr 944 So 2d 668 927 So 2d 356 360 674 Rao v writ denied 05 2453 925 So 2d 1232 Right of Action Carr action strenuously no standing seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against maintains that there is statutes urges that the LSBA has defining the no or right non of law or 6 the unauthorized practice this bring lawyers right of action for injunctive relief under the practice to LP AA of law Carr or the The LSBA counters that it initiated this lawsuit public from the unauthorized Articles of and power and to to granted 5 Bernich v Committee 170 So the power to a non LSA R S rule is 5 sue a 567 577 v 817 13 12 La in its on 96 re 2 21 01 App 5 A LSBA Articles of 680 So 2d 1 Cir 9 27 96 for providing profession in the State litigation the LSBA Further the LSBA is created and Article III Section 1 7 added points regulated This of law Supreme Court of Louisiana Rule Emphasis it with Thus the fact that the LSBA name to under adoption by Supreme LSA Const 19 Section 1 The pertinent part uphold practice of law states in objects and purposes of this Association shall be to regulate the the honor of the Courts and of the profession of law and welfare of the 717 suit if the LSBA demonstrates that it not bar the Incorporation re 05 0475 779 So 2d 715 Supreme Court of Louisiana Rules of law Supreme Court the constitutional mandate and inherent power of the B acts See also In Broussard Louisiana v La In practice of 1936 LSA R S 12 207B 3 in the including the 692 So 2d 1067 corporate provides that 333 La Poirier 95 2582 power of the to Bester 00 1360 the LSBA relies which App Orleans La Supreme plenary constitutional authority prescribe rules and regulations governing the practice Sec protect the Article III Sections 1 and 2 of its 943 So 2d 331 814 and be sued 37 211 making to practice of law including in the unauthorized engaged real and actual interest pursuant Court to are profit corporation does possesses the rule Inc the all facets of the practice of law La 11 9 06 writ denied 96 2628 Additionally to pursuant Bar Admissions ALCO Collections 735 746 charge The LSBA also argues that the Louisiana regulate 900 So 2d on regulate the express exclusive and define and 4 22 05 La 5 law practice of Crawford 06 2385 Art such actions to conduct of persons who Meunier is bring Incorporation Court has been its lawyers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law contending non standing that it has to pursuant generally to promote the Louisiana State Bar Association And while the are which tend to impede 779 So 2d at 717 See Bester Meunier 170 So A LSA C C P art stated the an action is admissible and supporting generally 99 A plaintiff 874 1981 affected so Meredith 96 1110 v as La 9 9 97 be said that the in the litigation will be struck 680 So 2d at 746 Id right the of action tests right asserted Simply particular plaintiff ALCO Collections Inc objection of an no as a 680 right of party raising this peremptory exception bears submitted to on was at the admitted hearing on at the hearing the permanent determine whether the LSBA has 98 1224 Kuyrkendall La on the injunction a right of App 1 Cir 177 concept utilized to is a that 95 0719 in the action asserted real and actual interest a n ensure Ieyoub whether this Property Owners Ass Standing to that statutes 680 So 2d at 738 controverting Succession of must have River Road La v 740 So 2d 173 Ramsey can re will review the entire record Ridgedell a or Since evidence Id proof preliminary injunction and See tests interest in the claim sued Evidence the burden of right of action no judicially enforcing ALCO Collections Inc of no objection So 2d at 739 19 5 authority s ALCO Collections Inc has any interest in 927A 6 of law has action Supreme Court the LP AA as practice of law peremptory exception pleading the objection of plaintiff we the 1976 La at 576 whether the matter frustrate the or regulate 440 441 such acts legislative in aid of its inherent power to passed down Court will approve Supreme 329 So 2d 437 Edwins v a Reeves v 396 So 2d 873 determine if a party is justiciable controversy is presented La App 700 So 2d 478 plaintiff has Inc a 1 Cir 4 4 96 The legally protectable 672 So 2d at 377 378 8 to the court 672 So 2d 375 requirement of and standing tangible sufficiently 377 affd is satisfied if it interest at stake We begin our analysis premise that it is unlawful for with the person who has not been first practice of law by the Supreme Court of this in this state Articles of See LSA R S contracts are provision Duncan 170 So by for are Crocker It is undisputed in Louisiana public adjusting 2030 states in person or added services be declared 6 12 207B 3 nullity by of Carr s However against 6 Carr s no to an a bsolute the court on sue those Inc unauthorized who Meunier licensed to activities engaged in contracts providing for nullity its a may be invoked own initiative by any Emphasis Crocker 615 So 2d at 921 as a juridical person right of action pursuant to assert contracts because the contracts practice of law and not 1 Cir are are the provide against public specifically request that Carr Instead the LSBA seeks practice of App Louisiana Civil Code article and be sued petition does absolutely null La 2 Cir 1985 employees 680 So 2d at 743 public adjusting s App s render services consequently 921 public adjusting the LSBA could have the LSBA be declared La absolutely null for services that constitute the unauthorized contracts and practice of law then the are that pertinent part may LSA R S policy cause lawyer 615 So 2d 918 Therefore if the ALCO Collections Inc absolute practice of law Section 5 of the LSBA a non unlawful that Carr has Because the LSBA has the power to to by made Levy v Carr constitute the unauthorized those an IV Gordon 476 So 2d 896 897 v at 577 practice law Art 1 213A and contracts in the state to engage against public policy and absolutely null ALCO Collections 680 So 2d at 742 743 1993 Any Incorporation in violation of this 37 and admitted to the regularly licensed and duly natural a law activities The s injunctive relief question then is general rule is that when the word person is used in a statute the statute applies to corporations as well as to natural persons if such corporations fall within the reason and purpose of the provision of the statute SS v State Ex ReI Dept of Social Serv 02 0831 La The 14 12 02 831 2d So 926 933 934 9 whether the LSBA has standing real and actual interest or a in the injunction litigation Our examination of standing is aided by the criteria set forth in Hunt 432 U S Washington State Apple Advertising Commission 2434 2441 in Ramsey 53 L Ed 2d 383 River Road criteria that members 2 are the easily some before Owners Ass an association neither the claim asserted 3 participation met in this can bring of whom initiated the rendering services to suit a protect are the suit in their pertinent are the relief nor that capacities call for the to members of the LSBA in order to stop a the statutes protect the public Ins Co 1890 public La 38 709 La and consistent with the App enjoin Further the honor of Article III Section 1 practice of law Adjustment 877 So 2d 294 10 299 to State Farm v writ denied 04 brought practice of law by purpose of the LSBA of the individual members of the LSBA is Inc And established were Bureau Thus the instant suit the unauthorized expressed lawyer professional training licensing and Incorporation 2 Cir 6 23 04 885 So 2d 595 to promote the welfare of the profession of with the unauthorized Louisiana Claims 10 29 04 from to See LSBA Articles of dealing non regulate the practice of law uphold the profession of law and generally its sought complaints against Carr obviously would be able stated purpose of the LSBA is law in Louisiana to These criteria Id judgment of a lawyer as required by the Supreme Court of Louisiana the The behalf of its on bring to by the association Individual attorneys who case 97 S Ct 396 So 2d at 874 of individual members in the lawsuit institute this lawsuit in their individual from Inc n the interests the association seeks purpose and requires met Property 343 adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court 1 the members would otherwise be able are right own be must and 1977 333 v a to protect the non lawyer is Finally the participation of all not necessary for a proper adjudication of the for issue since injunction injunctive relief to to act in matters that fee we interest of public Adjustment find that the LSBA had standing to Carr also maintains that the LSBA has relief because unauthorized the LSBA the Scheffler The v facts as to true on is de the in order The valid cause and a a contingency lawsuit cause enjoin practice of judicially refers assert to to the operative the action and for purposes of pleadings pleaded facts in the Because the court court exception of no cause decision is based s s ruling a on an give the defendant 950 So 2d 641 determine whether the law affords Id prohibits the facts which against 06 1774 La 2 22 07 the well that statute injunctive As used in the context of the 646 resolving petition remedy on are the of action raises solely on the sufficiency of exception of no cause of action most favorable plaintiff s favor the petition true and to petition of action for relief Id set allegations forth above of action for in the LSBA we s find that the Louisiana as petition alleges jurisprudence 11 is replete prohibiting with applying facts sufficient injunctive and declaratory relief seeking Carr from the direct violation of laws law of action for no cause every doubt resolved in the all of the legal principles to state bring this to 877 So 2d at 299 Inc pertinent question is whether in the light plaintiff and with Accepting the of action by the exception review of the trial Id novo states any Bureau criminal a the face of the alleged in the petition petition on Adams and Reese LLP question of law and the trial the only permitting licensed lawyers See LSA R S 37 213 cause plaintiff s right the issues raised a a exception is triable accepted relies practice of law peremptory exception to this action of Action No Cause rise potentially bring require professional legal judgment pursuant See Louisiana Claims contract Therefore the serve could single attorney a to restrain the unauthorized examples of a plaintiff relief in order requesting injunctive unlawful behavior no recorded case 7 of 1aw practice outlined in to prohibit criminal or dealing specifically with an as A a plaintiff is entitled a defendant from engagmg prohibitory when the conduct Jurisich prohibitory law And once sought made a necessity that no review of the LSBA thorough accepted showing of other be restrained is unlawful direct violation of a 749 So 2d 597 is entitled to a 599 to be injunctive relief without adequate legal remedy exists reveals that Carr petition s is requisite prima facie showing that the conduct constitute the unauthorized true as to enjoined constitutes enjoined is reprobated by law the plaintiff the the injunctive relief without to Jenkins 99 0076 La 10 19 99 v plaintiff has a be to although there injunction against the unauthorized showing of irreparable injury when the conduct sought as statute m s A activities if alleged practice of law which Id is specifically prohibited by Louisiana law The substantive issues regarding the unauthorized practice of law in this governed by the provisions are R S 7 See Jurisich authorizing oyster Fisheries cited formerly 22 1708 v of the LP AA Jenkins as at LSA R S 22 1210 91 99 0076 La 10 19 99 lease renewals LSA R S 22 1691 by Secretary Spine Diagnostics Center of Baton Rouge La App 1 Cir 12 23 08 So 2d Inc v Nursing Department 45 writ denied 51 05 2288 by property through Dept of Revenue 834 writ denied 96 1983 for requirements 10 3 La owner operating adopting a 14 3 664 So 2d 1216 psychology App and 3 Cir 5 5 93 Quachita 2d So U S Legislation new 1341 909 Support 2d So Parish Police 1350 La App 113 S Ct 2339 motocross 1243 Jury v 2 Cir 124 L 689 La 05 923 So 2d violation of noise and nuisance business App 1383 10 8 Star Enterprise 1 Cir 6 28 96 676 violation of State v 2d So 2d So 827 rule formula for 1223 1224 in 617 a Parish of East Feliciana 1 Cir mandatory making State through computing taxable values of Psychologists v Atterberry 95 0391 La App 1 Cir violation of laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of 97 Louisiana State Board of Examiners 11 9 95 925 So 2d 515 06 and Taxation 95 1980 La regarding only be of performing services that could nurse ordinances of Wildlife and Louisiana State Board of anesthetists practice registered a physician licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana performed by through East Feliciana Police Jury v Guidry 04 1197 La App scope ofcertified violation of statute violation of statute 08 0813 LSA LSA R S through 749 So 2d 597 601 of the Louisiana through case of Animals v Vermilion Parish Police 1247 violation of the cruelty Jury American Waste and Pollution Control writ denied 2d Ed 249 609 1993 statute 12 2d So 243 92 972 La to animals criminal statute La 1992 Company 606 denied 508 cert violation of storage of hazardous waste 22 1210 108 and LSA R S 8 LSA R S 37 213 Thus there are unauthorized which provides the two and 9 one as well as penalty for the unauthorized practice of law scenarios in Louisiana that pertinent statutory practice of law public adjusters defining the practice of law 37 212 is specifically directed It follows that the LSBA has stated the prohibit toward the actions of a cause of action for injunctive relief by alleging that Carr has directly violated statutory prohibitions by engaging clients in the unauthorized contingency fee on a practice of law and illegally contracting with its percentage based This contract argument has no merit 8 Louisiana Revised Statute 37 213 provides in pertinent part A No natural person who has not first been duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law by the supreme court of this state no corporation shall except a professional law corporation Practice law l 2 Furnish attorneys or counselor an attorney and counsel to render legal serVIces 3 C Hold himself or itself out to the 4 Render furnish legal public services or as being entitled to practice law advice Any natural person who violates any provision of this Section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years D or Any or both which violates this Section shall be fined not corporation more than five thousand dollars Every officer trustee director agent who directly or indirectly engages in employee of a corporation act violating any provision of this Section or assists the corporation any in the performance of any such violation is subject to the penalties prescribed in this Section for violations by a natural person or Emphasis 9 Public added appraIsmg or evaluating and reporting to an insured in relation to a first party claim for which coverage is provided by an insurance contract that insures the property of the insured Public adjusting does not include adjusting is the business of i nvestigating any activities which may constitute the unauthorized shall be considered as permitting the unauthorized LSA R S original 22 1692 8 enactment qualifications and and restrictions as a formerly procedures on re designated LSA RS 22 1210 72 8 for the practice practice and cited as of law Nothing of law LSA RS in this Part Emphasis 22 1210 92 8 added a after The purpose of the LPAA is to govern the of public adjusters and it specifies the duties of a licensing public adjusters including limiting their licensure to assisting insureds in defined in first party claims in a manner which avoids the unauthorized practice of law LSA RS 37 212 and 213 LSA R S 22 1691 formerly cited as LSA Emphasis added as R S 22 1210 91 Additionally enter into any contract or the LPAA arrangement with specifically an insured public adjuster shall not provides for payment of a fee to states that which a as a public adjuster contingent upon percentage of the amount of any claim or claims paid to or on behalf of an insured by the insurer and any such contract shall be LSA RS 22 1703A formerly re designated and against public policy and is null and void cited as LSA R S 22 1210 1 03A after original enactment as LSA R S 22 121O 83A the which is or calculated 13 We likewise find of action cause a criminal does to no considered the law would ever 834 legal redress 96 1983 the unauthorized The ability to of 22 1700B 2 a practice an by law F damages against was See Star Enterprise 95 1980 La 14 3 La 97 App v State through 1 Cir 6 28 96 689 So 2d 1383 of law in its public adjusting adequate remedy to any Moreover law by business the in order to obtain suggestion 676 that another injunctive remedy virtue of the State of Louisiana Insurance Commissioner or defined as is clear injunction petition urging violation of refuse to issue renew public adjuster has been found 22 1210 100B 2 10 no reasoning applies suspend revoke license when practice same available of action for cause alleged that Carr had directly violated Louisiana LSBA need not show the lack of Id law at The record against defendants who violate the law be successful writ denied because the LSBA potentially remedy involving a prosecution against Carr and it private a of Revenue and Taxation Department engaging in if adequate remedy an So 2d 827 brought private no prosecution could be brought against Carr for his actions Furthermore relief assertion that the LSBA has contain evidence of any criminal not 10 s enjoin the unauthorized practice of law since that the LSBA has not Carr merit in Carr in formerly F after LSA R S to enactment have 37 212 redesignated original or as and reinstate a public adjuster is s s engaged in the unauthorized and 213 cited See LSA R S LSA R S as LSA R S 22 1210 80B 2 F 11 Republican Party of Louisiana 99 2073 La App 1 Cir 768 So 2d 273 275 and the unreported federal district court case Hickham v 9 22 00 96 1255 E D La 21196 11 Douglas unpublished relied on by Carr because the plaintiffs cause of action in each of those cases was for damages penalties sanctions reimbursement and distinguish We or attorney fees and injunctive 11 were Treen In the declaratory v case The sub judice the LSBA did not seek not but only requested specifically note however that at the time that this lawsuit was filed public adjusters required to be licensed that requirement did not go into effect until June 30 2007 22 1693A formerly re designated and cited as LSA R S 22 121O 93A after original We LSA R S damages relief enactment as LSA R S 22 1210 73A 14 In find that we summary the trial court properly overruled Carr peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and action on the exceptions Injunction against Mr Carr Permanent Carr s next preponderance unauthorized that the trial argues of the evidence practice that of law practice Police of law Jury The manifest error denied 05 2288 reverse a 06 10 3 La trial court 04 1197 s La an activity App standard is the 10 8 925 So 2d 515 as on in the appropriate well as a trial East Feliciana Parish 05 923 So 2d 45 53 writ Under this standard in order appellate an a constitutes the unauthorized through 1 Cir determination of fact entire record and find that personally engaged permanent injunction a See Parish of East Feliciana Guidry v without merit manifestly erred in finding court factual determination of whether s are Mr Carr had standard of review for the issuance of court of no cause Individuallyl2 Carr assignments of error s review the exist for the finding and further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly or wrong manifestly Development are even Stobart erroneous 617 So 2d 880 reasonable in reverse a reasonable factual basis does court must to light 882 grounds court s no sitting as of Transp court entirety this s and findings court may not trier of fact it would have we find that the record provides and Mr Carr a reasonable individually practice of law while conducting the business of partially strike Carr s reply brief based on the assignments of error and then later impermissibly reply brief We will consider all of Carr s assignments of merit to the LSBA that Carr had abandoned discussed those Thus if the trial determination that Carr in the unauthorized We find through Dept Id With these precepts in mind 12 1993 if convinced that had it been basis for the trial State of the record reviewed in its weighed the evidence differently engaged La v not s some motion to of its assignments in its though the arguments are sparse on several issues and headings The LSBA s motion to partially strike is hereby denied error even 15 do not contain individual The record supports public adjusting and or a policies rights concerning negotiated the redress of settlements and evaluate the merits of his clients the unauthorized on business of law practice 877 So 2d at 299 Mr Carr wrong in s Duncan contingency finding that engaged Mr individually we well Bureau Adjustment that the trial clearly individually along with his practice of law against Mr as in at 577 cannot say entitled to engaged and Meunier 170 So 476 So 2d at 897 in the unauthorized as He therefore law license See Louisiana Claims Carr was a discuss and to Mr Carr admits that he insurance claims alone testimony determined that the LSBA Carr a wrongs under their insurance legal directly contacted insurers engaged in all of these activities without Based to percentage based fee arrangement Mr Carr individually advised clients of issues and Inc finding that pursuant court was public adjusting The trial court correctly permanent injunctive relief against Mr Carr s public adjusting business Expert Legal Opinion In addressing Carr the trial court erred in law Carr objected arguing that it since the allowing expert testimony to the need for expert is the trial court court assignment of error next s itself is an s function expert on objection and allowed the testimony University Law unauthorized School practice as of law an to on we matters testimony determine whether must related on the The trial court of Professor Dane S overruled Carr of Loyola and ethics s the reasoned that the expert had court as of law practice Ciolino expert in the field of law specialized knowledge that would assist it field of ultimately determine what the law is the law The trial to the the trier of fact by Professor Ciolino testifying about the standard of conduct involved and the particular provisions of the law The trial court ruled that testimony that is otherwise admissible is according 16 to LSA C E not to be excluded art 704 solely opinion because it embraces an ultimate issue testified that Carr unauthorized s conduct decided opined that Carr Schwamb to testify as an writs denied 520 So 2d 750 uncontradicted v Brennan 05 647 06 0689 Cir La 12 23 97 La 5 26 06 516 So 2d 452 Inc court admits 930 So 2d 33 as to Pendleton v Morgan on v by the trial appeal absent a finding State Farm Fire and Cir 112 07 978 So 2d 941 946 accept not or 1987 reject the 97 570 to Id court Printing 1071 be Inc writ denied App La 3 given expert 706 So 2d at 501 Inc 07 0334 Having thoroughly reviewed as s should 1 Cir App House of weight Casualty Company opinion testimony Professor Ciolino lawyers will not be that the trial court abused its discretion abuse of the trial we or regarding expert testimony no expert testimony find court s Barrett The effect and 500 La 924 So 2d 1067 testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial disturbed of ultimate facts based upon the See Brennan 5 Cir 2 27 06 App 459 The trial court may 1988 La 706 So 2d 498 The decision reached manner determining who should opinions expressed by an expert other evidence that the trial in the expert and whether expert testimony is admissible Delta Air Lines v define and is fact to lawyers operate A trial court has broad discretion in permitted acting and the 13 without the ethical constraints under which be was law practicing to concept that is difficult a Professor Ciolino the trier of fact by clearly equivalent was of law is practice Professor Ciolino specific to be an court s App La 1 the evidence and discretion in accepting expert witness who had specialized 13 Multiple factors led to Professor Ciolino s opinion including 1 Carr gave legal advice and engaged in legal analysis by construing coverage and limitations in insurance policies rights regarding claims for bad faith and other legal remedies and interpreting case law 2 Carr acted in a representative capacity as an advocate for clients pursuant to a contract of representation 3 Carr s manner of compensation suggested he and his company are compensated like lawyers on a power of attorney document that allowed Carr for clients at mediations without the presence of the client 5 Carr s percentage of what is recovered to be attorney in fact an notice of representation 4 Carr had forbids insurance a companies from dealing directly with Carr power of attorney document authorizes Carr to prepare documents necessary to completely settle the client s insurance claim and 6 Carr s 17 s clients that are We further find that the evidence Carr regarding issue before it error 14 that assisted the trial court with the factual determinations in this knowledge supports the trial unauthorized s court findings s on of law This that the trial court practice case the ultimate of assignment is without merit Entrapment Carr asserts in its final it because erroneous manufactured from Gay a assignment based was of entrapment evidence that on error Carr is sting operation referring private investigator hired by the LSBA a insurance claim for property personal his insurance claim when he Gay and Carr of Carr knowledge into evidence hearing on at the met with Carr representative s damage was the trial on the Carr did not permanent injunction recording into evidence nor to Gay s s meeting and was to testimony regarding between meeting recorded of the object regarding Gay The representative preliminary injunction largely was Gay altered the facts of his home recording was testimony of Glen to contact Carr video and audio The representative s s to to the decision s without the admitted was resubmitted at the the introduction of the his investigation or the recording of the meeting In order to preserve that the state complaining party the reasons Louisiana State 14 law evidentiary enter for the a and appellate review contemporaneous objection Anderson objection University issue for Agricultural v to the Board of and Mechanical it is essential evidence and of Supervisors College through While expert testimony is generally not permitted to address the meaning of domestic in this case the bulk of the expert testimony did not address the meaning of law but rather addressed Carr the trial court conduct and whether it constituted the unauthorized s s jurisprudence In an re or factual determinations statutes at issue Succession of Allison granted and remanded Wilson 542 2d So on 568 573 was 495 31 other La harmless La grounds App practice of law thus aiding Any testimony touching on an interpretation of error App 1 Cir 99 0595 1 Cir 1989 18 in this bench trial See LSA C E 1 29 99 La 3 24 00 727 757 2d So 683 2d So 684 647 art 704 1 n writ Wilson v Louisiana State 17 10 University 1198 943 So 2d 06 Health Science 1201 The failure objection during the trial waives the right of evidence trial of Department 04 12 10 evidence Gay Still at s testimony does right or cross Gay to contest s Himel Id La reveal any not contemporaneous State v La 05 18 3 objection appeal that the on 04 274 Development through 5 App Cir 896 So 2d 999 was on admitted into the part of Carr point in s investigative tactics the LSBA s expert witness Professor Ciolino was no formal investigative tactics the admission of Gay objection to Therefore testimony s consideration of that evidence when Thus this complain we the at one testimony about the find that Carr has waived and the recorded We also find that Carr has waived its into evidence court s a 5 Cir App questioned Gay examining point there that recording its of to make La testimony and the recorded meeting which s during Gay context party to 137 writ denied 04 2802 The record shows that Carr the at and Transportation 887 So 2d 131 Our review of admitted improperly was a 06 153 Center right investigation to contest the trial making its findings and conclusions assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION F or all of the deny the LSBA affirm the trial LSBA and from s motion court enjoining engaging set forth in reasons s to judgment granting Carr and Associates March 25 opinion partially strike Carr in the unauthorized judgment dated this 2008 a reply brief we of law as we individually outlined in the trial All costs of this appeal are court assessed individually TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED 19 hereby Additionally and Earl T Carr Jr defendants Carr and Associates Inc and Earl T Carr Jr MOTION DENIED reiterate that permanent injunction in favor of the Inc practice s we s to
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
