MARKWHITE Attorney General

SupremeCourtBuilding P.0.BOX1254a Austin.TX. 78711 512/475-2501 Telex9104874-1367 Telecopier512M754266
1M)7MainSt..Suite1400 Dallas.TX. 75201 214n428944

4824Albefla Ave..SUite160 ElPaso. TX. 79905 9151533-3464

1220DallasAve..Suite202 Hou?~ton.

TX. 77002 7136500666

806Broadway.Suite312 Lubbock.TX.79401 Msl747+238

4302N.Tenth.Suite0 McAllen.TX.78501 3126824547

2WMainPlaza,SuiteUXJ SanAntonio.TX. 78205 51212254191 

# The Attorney General of Texas

November 19, 1981 --- l ThisOr;nion

AiiirmsOninkm I 

# 1 #
. ..@!&&L 1 -_-_ Honorable Henry Wade Criminal District Attorney Condemnation Section Sixth Floor, Records Building Dallas, Texas 75202 Opinion No. MW-392
Re: Representation of corporations by non-attorneys in small claims court Dear Mr. Wade: You ask for a re-examination of our conclusion in Attorney General Opinion MU-312 (1981). In this opinion, we concluded that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in county court or county court at law in cases involving an appeal to that court from the small claims court. Attorney General Opinion H-538 (1975) concluded that a non-lawyer could represent a corporation in small claims court. This result was based on the specific statutory language of section 2 of article 2460a, V.T.C.S., as well as the policies underlying the small claims court statute. Attorney General Opinion MW-312 (1981) found no statutory authority for a non-lawyer to represent a corporation on appeal from the small claims court to the county court. Section 12 of article 2460a. the statute governing the small claims court. provides that a party could appeal to the county court or county court at lav “in the same manner as is now provided by statute for appeals from the justice court to the County Court.” Thus, Attorney General Opinion HW-312 concluded that the trial de nova in county court would be governed by Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits individuals, but not corporations. to represent themselves in court. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine Service, 437 S.W.Zd 43 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Diat.] 1969, no writ). You suggest that section 13 of article 2460a should require a different result. This statute provides in part:

The trial on appeal shall be de nova. but no further pleadings shall be required and the procedure shall be the same as that her= prescribed for the Small Claims Court. (Emphasis added).
We do not believe this language authorizes a non-attorney to represent ~acorporation in the trial de nova In county court on appeal from the

p. 1333r, l I .v, Honorsble Henry Wade - Page 2 (Mu-392)

small claims court. Section 2 of article 2460a, V.T.C.S., the statutory basis for the non-lawyer’s appearance In small claims court, provides for the jurisdiction of the small claims court. Section 2 does not establish procedure to be followed in the trial de nova on appeal. See Bvke v. City of Corpus Christi. 569 S.W.Zd 927, 931 (Tex. Clv. App.-Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref ’d n.r.e.). In our opinion,

“procedure” in the context of section 13 refers to pleadings, evidence, and the judge’s role in the trial. .V.T.C.S. art. 2460a. 517. 9. 11. It does not determine who can practice in county courts. As we concluded in Attorney General Opinion MW-312. a corporation must be represented by an attorney in county court or county court at law in cases involving an appeal to that court from the small claims court. SUMMARY

A corporation must be represented by an attorney in county court or county court at law in cases involving an appeal to that court from the small claims court. Section 13 of article 2460a. V.T.C.S., does not require a contrary result. A

Attorney General of Texas JOHNW. FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General RICHARDE. GRAYIII Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by Susan L. Garrison Assistant Af?torney General APPROVED

: OPINION COMMITTEE Susan L. Garrison. Chairman James Allison Jon Bible Rick Gilpin Jim Moellinger

p. 1334