The Florida Bar re: Advisory Opinion" Shore v. Wall
On a Goldberg-type request, the Florida Supreme Court approved the UPL Standing Committee's proposed advisory opinion holding that a nonlawyer surplus-recovery company engages in the unlicensed practice of law when it holds itself out as having special knowledge about recovering tax deed sale surplus proceeds, solicits owners, takes a purported 'absolute assignment' that is in fact modified by a contemporaneous 40/60 contingency sharing agreement, and then files claims with the clerk and pleadings in the interpleader action. Because the owner retained a 60% interest, the company was representing another in court rather than appearing as a true assignee owning the claim.
Key facts
- The Florida Bar sought an advisory opinion on whether a nonlawyer surplus-recovery company engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by soliciting tax deed sale surplus owners and offering recovery services.
- The company obtained purported 'absolute assignments' of surplus proceeds from owners but contemporaneously concealed 40/60 fee-sharing agreements under which owners retained 60% of any recovery.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This supplies the Supreme Court ruling that Goldberg requires before a litigant can plead a cause of action premised on the unlicensed practice of law in this setting, so defendants in tax deed surplus/interpleader… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.