By: Claire Remillard
Everyone understands the sinking feeling of flashing lights in your rearview mirror or coming back to your car to find a little piece of paper rustling on the windshield: UGH, you got a ticket. Now you have a choice: will you show up in court to fight the ticket, or will you pay it to avoid the hassle? If you lived in one of four counties in southern Florida, the choice was easy—just take a picture of the ticket and have the TIKD app take care of it for you.
The concept of TIKD was relatively simple: the user could make an account on TIKD’s website, then upload a picture of the ticket, the location and time the ticket was issued, and some basic personal information. If TIKD accepted the ticket, the user would pay a fee guaranteed to be lower than the price of the ticket, and the app connected the user to an independent attorney. The participating attorneys were paid a flat rate for each ticket and would have contact with the user through email with any updates. If the ticket still had to be paid, TIKD would pay the difference, and if it resulted in points on a license, the user would be fully refunded by TIKD. Indeed, the TIKD website advertised, “Get on with other things while TIKD hires a qualified attorney on your behalf to challenge your ticket.” True to its advertisements, TIKD could afford to fully refund users or pay the losing tickets because of its high success and dismissal rates.
Soon, local municipalities and parking authorities became frustrated with the loss of revenue because of the app’s high success rate. Other ticket-fighting entities such as Ticket Clinic were equally as incensed about the app’s success. The Florida Bar officially filed a complaint against TIKD in January of 2018 alleging that the app was practicing law without a license because its CEO and founder, Christopher Riley was not an attorney. A Miami-Dade Circuit Judge, Teresa May Pooler was assigned to be a referee for the Florida Bar’s arguments. Judge Pooler granted summary judgment to TIKD, concluding there was no dispute of material fact, and the app had not participated in the unauthorized practice of law, finding that TIKD was a third-party paying user’s attorney fees, which is legal under Florida law. The Judge further opined that TIKD was providing a convenient way for laypersons to navigate the “confusing and overwhelming” process of challenging a ticket.
In the opinion published October 14, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed and found that the TIKD was practicing law without a license because its business was solely derived from providing legal services. The court’s decision was based on a prior case, State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, which laid out eight factors to determine whether a person or entity is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Some factors the Court focused on in the present case included that TIKD would keep the user’s payment until after the ticket was resolved, and its business would not exist but for the provision of legal services.
The Court seemed less concerned about TIKD’s actual practices and more worried about future businesses taking a similar premise too far. Much of the discussion was devoted to how TIKD’s business model could become corrupt and potentially put the public in danger. For example, the Court explains that TIKD could miss critical deadlines and the client could suffer because of the ineffectual legal services. The Court also pointed to the potential conflict between profit and the interests of the client, with a focus on the lack of recourse the Bar would have without their disciplinary functions, since TIKD does not have a legal license. The dissenting opinion pointed out that TIKD was not accused of these practices and had a high success and client approval rating. Further, the app only served as a connector between the app users and real attorneys, who could be prosecuted by the Bar if they behaved in the irresponsible manner the Court was so concerned about.
This ruling may have a bigger impact than just the loss of an easy and effective way to handle ticketing—it could serve as a barrier for future technology-based legal innovation. Access to legal services is notoriously scarce in the U.S. due to lack of affordability and the complexity of the legal system. Some public interest groups have backed TIKD during the ongoing legal struggle and have claimed that the movement to stop TIKD is due to fear that a technological revolution could “usurp attorneys’ market share and dominance of the legal-services market.”
Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law is by no means something to be taken lightly; however, TIKD simply aimed to facilitate the connection between user and a bar-certified attorney. This model had the potential to expand access to legal services and provide a cost-effective way for normal people to dispute parking and traffic tickets. This may not be the last of TIKD though; Christopher Kise, TIKD’s lawyer has hinted that they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to possibly gain a more favorable ruling.
Student Bio: Claire Remillard is a second-year law student at Suffolk University. Claire is a Staffer on the Journal of High Technology Law, the Vice President of the Health and Biomedical Law Society, and the Assistant Coordinator of Mentorship for the Women’s Law Association. Claire received a bachelor’s degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology from West Chester University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
