# TheAttorney GeneralofTexas
August 16, 1983 MATTOX xneyGeneral

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

,- 3Da.~

.Ave.. Suite 202 ISlO”, TX. 77002-6966

‘650-0666 ‘,
Broadway. Suite 312 t0ch. TX. 79401.3479 ~747+,238

8N.Tenth. Suite B *h, TX. 76501-1665 y682-4547

?MaIn Plaza. Suite 4W $Antonio. TX. 762052797 h-419, t Honorable HenryWade 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
DearMr.Wade:
You ask whether bail bondsmen are engaging in the unauthorized practice of lawin the following three fact situations:

1. Alay 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 NewTrial and making requests fo; .&tension andremittance.
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 NewTrial and making requests for extension andremittance. 3. Thelay proprietor of asole proprietorship bonding company is making court appearances without counsel under apower 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 lawandexisting 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 andtheir owninterests before the court, the nature of their activities as outlined above constitutes the rendering of legal advice to andthe representation of individuals and entities other than themselves. Specifically, they are violating

p. 268Honorable HenryWade- Page 2 (~~-62)

asettled legal principle which requires corporations andpartnerships toberepresented bylicensed attorneys. The practice of law is affected with apublic 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, 438S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1969. nowrit). See also Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D. TX 1975). aff

’d 542F.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 EarAct, nowcontrols determinations of whether or not an activity constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Article 320a-1 establishes the State Barof Texas as aregulatory agency of Texas’ state government and has endowed the State Barwith disciplinary and rulemaking powers governing the practice of law in Texas. Thearticle states, in pertinent part, the following: -

Sec. 19(a). For purposes of this Act, the practice of law embraces the preparation of pleadings andother papers incident to actions of special proceedings and the management of actions andproceedings onbehalf 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 anddoes not deprive thejudicial branch of the power andauthority both under this Act andthe adjudicated cases to determine whether other services andacts not enumerated in this Act mayconstitute 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 Barof Texas andthe state’s judicial branch must apply the statute onacase-by-case basis vith regard to the attendant circumstances. See Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas, Twenty-first Congressional District v. Dean, 190S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. APP. - Austin 1945, nowrit). While the State Bar Act requires any individual who wants t? practice lawfirst to obtain alicense, neither the State Barnor thstate judiciary has promulgated rules which specifically define those

p. 269Honorable HenryWade- Page 3 

### (JM-62)

acts constituting the practice of law. SeeGrievance 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-someDart orovided-standards

. . bywhich legal conduct -maybejudged.
Adetermination ofwhether or not anindividual 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. SeeGrievance Committee v. Coryell, supra; Grievance Committee v. Dean,--. Thepractice of lawincludes

the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions of special proceedings, and the management of such actions andproceedings 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. Alayman 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, nowrit), cert. denied, 368U.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. Theymaynot 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 andMachine Service, 437S.W.2d 43. 45 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1969, no writ); Flora Construction Company v. Fireman's FundInsurance Company, 307F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962). cert. denied, 373U.S. 919 (1963). Turning to the three fact situations outlined inyour request, we believe that in each instance bondsmen are engaging in the ,-authorized practice of law. The first situation shows alay person ,t only representing the bonding company for which he or she works *ut also the company's clients' interest. Webelieve that this action

p. 270Honorable HenryWade- Page 4 (JM-62)

violates article 320a-1, V.T.C.S.. andthe above referenced standards established bycase law.
In the second situation a lay person is seeking to represent a partnership. Partnerships mustbe represented by licensed attorneys. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply andMachine Services, supra. The bondsman, therefore, is engaging in anunauthorized 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. Webelieve that these actions constitute an unauthorized practice of law. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine Service. supra. Theagreement between the lay person and the client companywhich requires the lay person to reimburse the client for bond forfeitures for which the client is liable is irrelevant to a determination ofwhether anunauthorized practice of lawhas 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 TOMGREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVIDR. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byLaura Martin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman Jon Bible Colin Carl Laura Martin JimMoellinger Nancy Sutton

p. 271