Franchisees Accuse Francorp of Unauthorized Practice of Law in Partnering with Client
OLYMPIA FIELDS, ILL. (Blue MauMau) - Donald Boroian, founder, CEO and CFO of Francorp Inc., is getting ready to face yet another hurdle in his 30-plus year career as a franchise consultant. A court order shows that he is now headed to a jury trial commencing August 11, 2008, filed by the franchisees of one of his clients.
The proposed 4th Amended Complaint filed in state court by Robert Einhorn, Zarco, Einhorn, Salkowski & Brito, on behalf of five area franchisees states the facts of the case. One pertinent issue arising from the latest amended version is the allegation that Boroian and his firm were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in drafting and delivering disclosure documents to the company, although they were not admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction. The lawsuit claims that because Francorp knew that prospective store operators would be relying on that information when purchasing their franchises, Francorp was engaged in practicing law which was "unauthorized, illegal and deceptive."
The Start of the Litigation
The franchise company at the core of the litigation is South Beach Franchising, brought to Francorp in 2003 by a former client who had a thirty-year history with Don Boroian and his firm. Carol Brothers, (now Carol Myers) had first brought her "Pop-In-Maid Service" concept to Francorp in 1978, a franchise which ended in bankruptcy after seven years. Her latest venture consisted of two models--South Beach Wellness, a system of spa locations for medically supervised health treatments, and South Beach Naturals, a program offering the sale of health products with nutritional value for skin care.
Francorp in marketing itself as the international leader in franchise development and consulting, gave assistance to Brothers and South Beach in preparing its business plans and disclosure documents in setting up its franchise system under South Beach Franchising. Although the firm states that clients must have their own attorney to review and revise documents, the consulting firm actually prepared the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular. Francorp also states that it takes no responsibility for the registration process of disclosure documents.
Brother's prior bankruptcy was not a requirement of the UFOC, but franchisees felt they should have been told about it. "Our point is that Don Boroian knew all about Carol Brothers past," said Einhorn. "The disclosure that does exist in the UFOC is not accurate in terms of her background for a number of years," he continued.
The complaint states that Francorp worked intimately with Brothers and South Beach in the development of its plans and operations, and executed an agreement called the "Full Franchise Development System." It included Francorp's promise to assist in launching a marketing and sales campaign, and effectively recruiting, training and servicing franchisees. It further alleges that Boroian and others met directly with investors who were interested in buying into the system.
Einhorn accuses Francorp of wrongful and fraudulent conduct in accordance to its agreement, that led to the injuries suffered by the franchisees. He further states that Boroian and his firm acted in concert with Brothers and South Beach Franchising in the perpetration of fraudulent and wrongful activities.
Francorp had a mutuality of interest in sale of South Beach's franchises
But the lawsuit also notes that Francorp did not receive compensation for its services, rather, it deferred payment under the agreement until after the sales of the master franchises were to commence. A payment schedule was agreed upon by the parties which stated:
"equal monthly installments of $5,000, plus an amount covering interest at one and one-half (1.5%) per month on the remaining unpaid balance and allowing amortization of principal. [sic] due 11/1/05 . . . Payments will begin upon sale of master franchises."
By agreeing to the arrangement, Einhorn alleges that Francorp had "a mutuality of interest in the sale of South Beach's franchises," and was engaged in a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship with Brothers and South Beach Franchising.
As part of their allegations of misrepresentations in the UFOC, franchisees claim that the South Beach concept and marks were part of the "system," but that "they did not possess any proprietary line of products, nor did it own any established trademarks or commercial symbols." After they executed their agreements, the company instructed that they could no longer use the name "South Beach Naturals" in the sale of the franchise or products. Instead, they were give a new official name, "AdaptoGenetics."
Francorp and South Beach are being accused of violating the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Florida Franchise Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The 11 counts against them include breach of contract and conspiracy. Plaintiffs are asking for rescission of the master franchise agreements and all other related agreements.
In summing up the case Einhorn said, "Don Boroian and his company completely stepped out of the role of being franchise consultants and became Brothers' partner, her joint venturer and her legal counsel. They actively participated in a scheme to defraud my clients."
Carl F. Schoeppl, Schoeppl & Burke, P.A., representing Boroian, Francorp, Brothers and South Beach Franchising, did not return this reporter's phone calls prior to publishing. He has filed a response opposing Einhorn's proposed fourth amended complaint. Francorp has taken the position in the lawsuit that they were only acting as consultants to South Beach Franchising, that they have no direct relationship to Einhorn's clients and are not liable.
Related article:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Proposed4thAmendedComplaintFrancorp.pdf | 2.77 MB |












Zarco, Zisk form chapter of Fla Prosecutors Assn
Maybe it's a Florida thing... but here in mosquito-free country we call civil claims "causes of action" and criminal claims "counts."
But the inclusion of a "count" of violation of Fla Stat 454.23 would be a criminal charge in my state; and here we have prosecutors employed by the state to file charges in felony cases. The statute in question provides that if Zarco wins his "prosecution", Bororian would be found "guilty" of a 3rd degree felony and up to 5 years in prison . It is not clear whether Zarco would imprison Bororian on the grounds of Zarco's estate or whether he would take Bororian into custody and place him in Miami-Dade lockup.
Seriously, I do admire the work Zarco has done and continues to do; he is one of the great franchisee-side attorneys. But this seems a bit of overreaching.
I don't see how Bororian held himself out as an attorney to the Plaintiffs. Indeed the Complaint is chock-full of references to work defendant Bororian/FranCorp performed for defendant Brothers/SBF-- where is any reference to "legal" work performed for any of the Plaintiffs?
Generally, an attorney does not have liability to the other side. And who was the attorney for the Plaintiffs when they bought the franchise? What kind of due diligence work did that attorney perform, and are the Plaintiffs seeking any damages from their own counsel?
Here, there is no indication that Bororian held himself out as an attorney to anybody. This can be a grey area--look at the Nolo Press/ We the People line of cases.
Certainly one may argue that Bororian may have liability to Brothers, and that Bororian may have liability to the State. But where is the liability to the counterparty in a business transaction? How do the Plaintiffs have standing to bring a civil cause of action for violation of a criminal statute?
As I understand the story and accompanying Complaint: Company A acted as a consultant to Company B in connection with B selling certain product. Company A provided B with certain draft documents and told B to consult with B's lawyer. Somehow Company B got certain filings done with the government, and those filings were not performed by A.
Now, how does that lead A to have liability to third parties? Who did the filings of the allegedly fraudulent documents, and why are they not named as defendants?
The focus of Zarco's complaint seems to be on the outside consultant rather than the franchisor who provided the allegedly defective/fraudulent documents to the end purchaser.
As to the payment plan: if Francorp had simply sent a bill and not bothered to initiate any collection action, would that make Francorp a "partner" of the vendee South Beach? If I have a client selling their business and I tell them that they can pay me from the proceeds at closing, am I now to have liability as a "partner" in the sale of the business?
It is easy to Bororian-bash; that is something of a sport here on BMM. But assume it was a different name. Would everyone be so nonchalant about the Zarco complaint?
Kudos to Zarco on a creative Complaint. But let's not brush past the implications for the bigger picture just because it's easy to kick Bororian in the shins.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Francorp Unauthorized Practice of Law
Frankly, I am not sure that I see the legal nexus myself. Maybe South Beach (the franchiser) has that nexus, and technically they could go after Francorp.
That being said, let's look at this case and see who is being hurt by whom.
A company that apparently should not be franchising goes to Francorp. Francorp says "Rah, Rah, Franchise Your Business," and the company does. Francorp's lawyers, who have very little franchise experience and rely largely on boilerplate documents, draft their legal documents. Francorp tells their client that they do not need an attorney with franchise expertise to review their documents. Francorp, who is "not" acting as their attorney does not need to make any disclosures about conflicts of interest -- and there are a bundle here given Francorp's motivation to sell franchises. Does Francorp do proper due diligence on disclosures? Do they make the disclosures just a little too "saleable"?
Franchisees rely on those documents and make a decision to buy a franchise. Did these disclosure documents contribute to this decision to buy?
So who loses? The franchisee.
While the nexus here may be dubious, what I cannot understand is why the Legal Bar does not go after Francorp and its attorneys.
Why no outcry over Francorp doc prep
Exactly. When I first heard about this suit, I assumed impleader was what landed Francorp in the soup. But apparently the zor is not (at least publicly) not expressing dissatisfaction with the consultant, let alone asserting unauthorized practice.
I do recall some mutterings at the ABA FoF fora and on the FoF ListServ to that effect. But there are those (and I am one of them) who are a bit uncomfortable with the guild-like aspect of going after "document prep" services such as Francorp or We The People. Plus this has been an increasingly difficult claim to push on a public which thinks that attorneys are too expensive and greedily try to keep out (lower cost) competition from non-attorneys.
It would be a bit ironic for the franchise bar to go after Francorp on the grounds that their clients are babes in the woods needing protection in this commericial transaction.
The franchise bar has traditionally been a bunch which thinks that Lochner was the epitome of proper jurisprudence and some of them think that the IFA headquarters should commission a marble bust of Stephen Field for the lobby.
That is hardly a bunch that can go after Francorp with a straight face.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Make Example of Francorp Lawyers
Francorp is not just a "document prep" service. They do more than that. They tell people, "get your attorney," but that is form winning over substance. Francorp and all their attorneys act like lawyers. The ABA should come hard on the lawyers especially. Make an example of them. They should know better. They went to law school. They are just as bad as Boroian.
ABA does not regulate attorneys
You don't understand that the American Bar Association is (as their website explains) a voluntary private organization. There are almost 1.2 million attorneys in the US, which means that the overhelming majority of attorneys in the US are not members of the ABA.
In addition to assiduously working as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, the ABA has consistently worked to keep barriers to entry high, as would any professional guild. That controversial subject is beyond the scope of BMM, but suffice it to say that the ABA would agree with you and if the ABA had its way, you would have to pay a lawyer every time you got out of bed in the morning.
As to people who tell you "get your attorney" I would note that this is a common issue in franchising: zor salespeople tell zees to hire an attorney, but zees are too cheap to do so.
Whose fault is that?
Similarly, if a zor is told "get your attorney" and chooses to be cheap and not hire an attorney, whose fault is that? Parentetically, I would note that in the particular situation of this Florida zor, my understanding is that the zor did in fact have one of the top franchise lawyers in the country draft the initial paperwork, but the zor chose to use the Francorp paperwork instead.
If the zor is that stupid, whose fault is that?
Presumably the zees had their attorney(s) review the documentation and the zees and/or their attorneys made adequate inquiry to satisfiy themselves as to the sufficiency of their pre-purchase investigation.
If the zees did not hire proper legal counsel, whose fault is that?
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Leave Francorp Alone... For All Our Sakes
Some years ago, the head of the Franchise Development practice at Quick, Duhk, & Hyde proposed that we go after FranCorp and Brororian for the Unauthorized Practice of Search-And-Replace. While we clearly had the legal basis for doing so (as the ABA has copyrighted the CTRL-H function), I had the foresight to order an economic impact study before proceeding.
It turned out that the additional billings to be gained by putting FranCorp out of the doc prep business would be immensely overshadowed by the resulting loss our litigation department would suffer. We find it more profitable and, indeed better for the industry, to let them continue.
And that, dear colleagues, is why no outcry over Francorp's doc prep.
See you on the veranda!
Millionaire Richard Quick, Esq.
Senior Partner, Quick, Duhk & Hyde
Templates get bad name
"Millionaire Ric" is entertaining as always.
I would suggest however, that "cut and paste" does get an undeservedly bad name as a result of lazy people who abuse the ease of word processing.
Many legal documents are done based on templates that have been developed by experts in the field, or developed by an individual attorney based on his/her experience. For example, in many places real estate leases and purchase contracts have a standard "cut and paste" form which covers the universal elements of such a transaction, and then a Rider which addresses some of the elements specific to the transaction.
So a template is oftentimes a good starting point. The risk to reinventing the wheel is that you forget important clauses and don't learn from experience. Far better to have a template which you modify to account for changes in law and experience, and then customize that dynamic template for each situation.
The issue for Francorp or similar companies is not whether they are starting with a standard template. It is whether the finished product is adequate.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Remember
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes.
Don't shade your eyes.
Plagiarise!
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Recruting Franchisors While Young
Judging from the photo, Francorp is recruiting younger and younger. I guess high school girls are the new franchisor candidates.
Very Creative Lawyering!
This is impressive work by Robert Einhorn and Zarco et al. This could be the swan song for franchise document preparation mills like Francorp.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
BOROIAN
There was some question recently as to whether Janet Sparks was on her game, I believe something was written about her not having any current news to report, or anything of substance to post.
Well, well, well.
Boroian....the fun never stops.
Further evidence that Ms. Sparks is on her game: (http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story.php?article=01027).
I love that Boroian admitted, under oath, that a potential franchisor really does not have to have a business system in place in order to franchise. Those contributing to BMM have been shouting for many months that Francorp will take any concept with the cash to pay the firm's fees. Finally we know for sure where Donny boy stands.
The full article is in this month's online Franchise Times in the Legal section if there are troubles with the link.
Unfortunately, Bororian correct
In the Franchise Times article , Bororian distinguishes between the practical need to have a "system" and the legal requirement to have a "system."
There is some truth to this. We all know of hare-brained systems which have dreams of franchise riches but little or no "system" to franchise. But if some sucker is willing to plunk down cash, caveat emptor.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Caveat Emptor?
Paul writes: 'We all know of hare-brained systems which have dreams of franchise riches but little or no "system" to franchise. But if some sucker is willing to plunk down cash, caveat emptor."
Justice Hugo Black wrote: " There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious.
The rule of caveat emptor should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception."
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
For those so predisposed to inquiry for the sake of inquiry
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}For those so predisposed to inquiry for the sake of inquiry I would suggest a comfortable chair, some cross reference materials, a beverage, some finger snacks and the case history of Justice Black makes for a very interesting evening. It is refreshing to see this Justice's name in print today, as it seems he has become forgotten, i.e.: cases seldom cited. His views are hard to understand in the context of today as he was rather a strict constructionist, and managed to insulate the court from any apparent political leaning. As such a constructionist his decisions applied to what is now both conservative and liberal viewpoints, based in the principles of a constructionist view of the Constitution.
Regards,
FuwaFuwaUsagi