The Attorney General of Texas 

August 16, 1983 

MATTOX 

xney General 

eme Court Bulldmg 

Box 12546 

an. TX. 78711- 2546 

475.2501 

I 9101874.1367 

copier :5121475~0266 

’ Main St.. suite 1400 

as. TX. ‘75201.4709 

742.8944 

: Alberta Ave.. SUlW 160 

aso. TX. 799052793 

533.3464 

,- 

3 Da.~ . Ave.. Suite 202 

ISlO”, TX. 77002-6966 

‘650-0666 ‘, 

Broadway. Suite 312 

t0ch. TX. 79401.3479 

~747+,238 

8 N. Tenth. Suite B 

*h, TX. 76501-1665 

y682-4547 

? MaIn Plaza. Suite 4W 

$ Antonio. TX. 762052797 

h-419, 

t 

Honorable Henry Wade 

Criminal District Attorney 

opinion No. JM. 62 

Dallas County Government Center 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Re: Unauthorized practice of 

law in connec’tion with bail 

bond forfeiture proceedings 

Dear Mr. Wade: 

You ask whether bail bondsmen are engaging in the unauthorized 

practice of law in the following three fact situations: 

1. A lay person other than the proprietor of a 

sole proprietbrship bonding company Is making 

court appearances without counsel and is making, 

signing, and filing Motions for a New Trial and 

making requests fo; .&tension and remittance. 

2. A lay person ~who Is a partner in a 

partnership bonding company is making court 

appearances without counsel in bond forfeiture 

hearings and is making, signing, and filing 

Motions for a New Trial and making requests for 

extension and remittance. 

3. The lay proprietor of a sole proprietorship 

bonding company is making court appearances 

without counsel under a power of attorney as the 

agent of a corporate insurer surety in bond 

forfeiture hearings and such lay person is making 

requests for extensions and remittance. The 

proprietor must reimburse or must pay any bond 

forfeitures on which the corporate surety is 

liable. , 

In light of current case law and existing regulatory statutes, we 

believe that in each of the above fact situations the lay persons are 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. While each of the 

bondsmen could represent themselves and their own interests before the 

court, the nature of their activities as outlined above constitutes 

the rendering of legal advice to and the representation of individuals 

and entities other than themselves. Specifically, they are violating 

p. 268 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 2 (~~-62) 

a settled legal principle which requires corporations and partnerships 

to be represented by licensed attorneys. 

The practice of law is affected with a public interest and the 

state has a right and duty to regulate and control its practice so 

that the public is properly served and protected. Palmer v. 

Unauthorized Practice Committee of the State Bar of Texas, 438 S.W.2d 

374, 376 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1969. no writ). See 

also Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D. TX 

1975). aff’d 542 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1976). 

Article 430(a) of the Texas Penal Code previously defined in 

specific terms the activities constituting the unauthorized practice 

of law. This article, however, has been repealed by the Texas 

Legislature. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, I1 at 883. Article 

320a-1, V.T.C.S., of the State Ear Act, now controls determinations of 

whether or not an activity constitutes the unauthorized practice of 

law. 

Article 320a-1 establishes the State Bar of Texas as a regulatory 

agency of Texas’ state government and has endowed the State Bar with 

disciplinary and rulemaking powers governing the practice of law in 

Texas. The article states, in pertinent part, the following: - 

Sec. 19(a). For purposes of this Act, the 

practice of law embraces the preparation of 

pleadings and other papers incident to actions of 

special proceedings and the management of actions 

and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges 

in courts as well as services rendered out of 

court, including the giving of advice or the 

rendering of any service requiring the use of 

legal skill or knowledge. . . . This definition 

is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial 

branch of the power and authority both under this 

Act and the adjudicated cases to determine whether 

other services and acts not enumerated in this Act 

may constitute the practice of law. 

V.T.C.S. art. 320a-1, 019(a). All act.6 which constitute an 

“unauthorized practice of law” are not enumerated in the statute. 

Apparently the State Bar of Texas and the state’s judicial branch must 

apply the statute on a case-by-case basis vith regard to the attendant 

circumstances. See Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas, 

Twenty-first Congressional District v. Dean, 190 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - Austin 1945, no writ). 

While the State Bar Act requires any individual who wants t? 

practice law first to obtain a license, neither the State Bar nor thstate judiciary has promulgated rules which specifically define those 

p. 269 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 3 (JM-62) 

acts constituting the practice of law. See Grievance Committee, State 

Bar of Texas, Twenty-first CongressfonT District v. Coryell. 190 

S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Civ. ADD. - Austin 1945. writ ref'd w.o.m.1: V.T.C.S. 

art. 320a-1: Case law:'however. has in- some Dart orovided-standards 

. . 

by which legal conduct -may be judged. 

A determination of whether or not an individual has engaged in an 

unlicensed, unauthorized legal practice can be determined by an 

examination of the services rendered and their relationship to the 

pqblic interest. See Grievance Committee v. Coryell, supra; Grievance 

Committee v. Dean,--. The practice of law includes 

the preparation of pleadings and other papers 

incident to actions of special proceedings, and 

the management of such actions and proceedings on 

behalf of clients before judges in courts. 

Davies v. Unauthorized Practice Committee of the State Bar of Texas, 

431 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); 

V.T.C.S. art. 320a-1, 619a~. The practice of law is not confined to 

cases conducted in court; it includes the giving of advice and 

rendering of conclusions which require the use of legal skill. Hughes 

p. Fort Worth National Bank, 164 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Tex:Civ. App. - 

)rt Worth' 1942, writ ref'd). Whether compensation is paid to an 

Lndividual performing services is irrelevant. Grievance Committee v. 

Coryell, supra, at 130-131. A layman is engaging in the unauthorized 

practice of law when that individual. by words or conduct, renders 

legal advice or services to others. Quarles v. State Bar of Texas, 

316 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1958, no writ), cert. 

denied, 368 U.S. 986 (1962). 

As previously stated, individuals have the privilege of 

representing themselves in legal matters; they are simply not 

permitted to appear on behalf of another individual or entity. 

Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44. 45 (D.C. Cir. 1953). cert. denied, 

347 U.S. 944 (1954). Corporations and partnerships, therefore, must 

be represented by licensed attorneys. They may not be represented by 

officers and/or agents of the partnership or corporation -- regardless 

of the individual's relationship to or position 'in the Company -- if 

those persons are not licensed attorneys. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. 

Engine Supply and Machine Service, 437 S.W.2d 43. 45 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Houston [lst Dist.] 1969, no writ); Flora Construction Company v. 

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962). 

cert. denied, 373 U.S. 919 (1963). 

Turning to the three fact situations outlined in your request, we 

believe that in each instance bondsmen are engaging in the 

,-authorized practice of law. The first situation shows a lay person 

,t only representing the bonding company for which he or she works 

*ut also the company's clients' interest. We believe that this action 

p. 270 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 4 (JM-62) 

violates article 320a-1, V.T.C.S.. and the above referenced standards 

established by case law. 

In the second situation a lay person is seeking to represent a 

partnership. Partnerships must be represented by licensed attorneys. 

Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine Services, supra. The 

bondsman, therefore, is engaging in an unauthorized practice of law. 

The final fact outline shows a lay person representing a 

corporation in court and by filing motions on the corporation's 

behalf. We believe that these actions constitute an unauthorized 

practice of law. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine 

Service. supra. The agreement between the lay person and the client 

company which requires the lay person to reimburse the client for bond 

forfeitures for which the client is liable is irrelevant to a 

determination of whether an unauthorized practice of law has occurred. 

* Grievance Committee v. Coryell. supra at 130. 

SUMMARY 

We believe that the three fact situations 

outlined in your letter constitute the 

unauthorized practice of law because lay persons 

? 

render legal advice and represent individuals and 

entities other than themselves. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICHARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Laura Martin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Laura Martin 

Jim Moellinger 

Nancy Sutton 

p. 271