OFFICE ‘OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

SllALD c. MANN 

.non*n e**caAL 

;j:, 

As;rIstant Dlstrlot ~ttornf 

Zr Morris G. Rosenthal .i 

Houston, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

OpInIon No. &a47 

Re: ConstruotIon _ - _ 

Kay 5, 1939 

of ArtiO+ 430a, 

letter or April 15, 

for fordlble detalnar or tor aolleotlon 

“,,, 0r open aooouots or notes?* 

%ur &si'qusstion may naturally be sub-divided 

Into two"$art?i: (1) my an unlIoansed Individual appear 

In the Ju::Cioe Courts as the agent or attorney In faot for 

another natural person, and (2) iaay an unlioensed Individual 

appear In the Justloe Courts as the agent or attorney in 

raot ror a oorporatlon? 

The statute plainly provides that an unlloensed 
, 

Mr. Morris 0. Rosenthal, l&l 5, 1459, Page 2 

individual map not appear as the agent or attorney In faot 

for another natural person. With referenaa to this quastion, Art1010 430a provides as follows: 

%aatIon 1. It shall bs unlawful for any 

aorporatlcn or any parson, rirm or assooiation 0r params, sxoept natural persons 

who are mm&err of the bar regularly aadttea and llaonsed, to praotlaa law. 

T3eatIon 2. . . . . . ..Whoever (a) In a representative aapaolty appears as an advoaato 

. . . . . ..or perronu any aot In oonneatlon 

with proatodingr pol;<iy GE proetyeatlve 

b&ore a aourt or a jostlae of the peaoe, 

or a body, board, aotmIttoo, aommlsalon 

or orrioer aonstltutod by law and having 

authority to take evldanaa In or settla 

or determine oontrorersias in the axeraise 

or the judlalal power of the State or subaitiaion thereof;.......~. ( 0 ) For a aonsideration, raward, or pe$ounIary banarlt, 

present or antioipataa, dlraat or inairoot, 

doas any aot In a reprssentstiva aapaalty 

in behalf of another tending to obtain or 

scours for such other tha prevention or 

ths redress of a wrong or the enforaament 

or establlshmsnt of a right; . . . . . . . ..I8 

praatlolng law." 

Independently of thla statutory provision, It has 

been held that a natural parson who Is not lloansed to praotlas law oannot appear In oourt as the agent or attorney In 

fact for another natural person. i#rkIns v. bEUrDhY and 

&lam, 112 S. 6. 136 (writ of~error dismIssea1. The atatute speoIrIoally applies to prooeedlngs before a justloa 

0r the peaae, and embraoes "any act In oonneotloo with prooeeaings pending cr prospectIve,W and therefore applies to 

suits for forolble detalner or for oollaotlon of open aocounts or notes. 

Ke rind no alreot authority In this at-to upon the 

que&ion of the right of an Individual who is not lioensed 
Mr. Morris C. Rosenthal, May 5, 1939, Paqe ,3 

to praatloe law to appear as the agent or Ettornay in faot 

ror a oorporatlon. It would s*am to bc alear that an Indlvldunl who Is not regulc\rly employed by the oorporotion, 

but who is hired merely to represent the corporation In 

court, would hove to be licensed to prnottoo l&r before 

he could appeilr for the aorporation. However, there Is a 

oonfllat of authority in othar jurisdictions on the right 

of the aorporatlon to be represented In court by one of 

Its regular orrioers or employees, who Is not lloensed to 

praotloe law. The oonrliot arises out or the question or 

the proper Interpretation to be given to statutes sImIlar 

to Seotlon 3 of Artlole 4308, whloh reads In part a8 follows: 

**Section 3. It shall be unlawrul for any 

aorporatlon to praotlae law as d4riE4d by 

this Aat or to appear aa an attorney lor 

any parson other than itself In any oourt 

In this State. or berore any ludialal body 

or any board or aomalsslon of-the State - 

0r Texas; * . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

With reference to the right of a party to appear 

In proprla persona, Artiole 1993 ol the Revised Civil Statutea provides as follows: 

"Any party to a suit may appear and proaeoute or defend his rights therein, either 

In perpon or by an attorney of the court." 

In soma oases It has been held that a corporation 

can appear In proprla persona In aases In whloh It I8 a 

party, and that In Suoh oaseo It may be represented by any 

or Its regular oifloers or einployees, even though such offlaer or eaployea 1s not llaensad to preotloe law. This 

view was reaently adopted by the supreme Court of Tennaasee 

In the oase of I&vert$ furniture Co&mW V. Foust, 125 S. #. 

fZ) .~-. 694. ---. deolded February 18. 1938. In Rew York where there 

IS a st:ttute -sI.xllnr to A~tIcie~43oe, ROEB 0r the a8oIsIons 

hold that a corpomtlon can eppesr by an unlloensad ofiioer 

or agent A. VI&or and Coxi~any v. Slelnln~er, 9 3. Y. S. 

(2) 323 I-p?. Div., 1030); 10th St. and 5th. Ino. v. 

Hauehton, 296 N. Y. 5. 952, 163 k%SO. 437; 'allent-iieuent 
Mr. Morris G. Rosenthal, May 5, 1939, Page 4 

Corporation v. *ueena Borough Gas and Electria Company 290 

N. y. S. @87, 160 MISC. 920, while other deoislons holi that 

suoh appearanoe Is void. Mortgaxe Commission v. Great Neal 

Improvement Company 

Realty Cornoration :. 

295 c. Y. s. 0 7 162 ;clsa. 416; Flnox 

LI~rmen 296 N:Y. S. 945, 163 klic 

070; Aberdeen Bindery v. Easiern .,tates c Printing and Publishing Company, 3 N. Y. S. (2) 419, 1% Misc. 904; J 

Whalen. Ino. v. 

A. 

Pritzert, 3 6. Y. S. (2) 418, 167 Mleo. 471. 

In other Jurisdlotlons, it appears to be the uniform rule that a corporation osnnot appear In Rroprla persona 

by an unlicensed offloer or agent. but that the cornoration 

must appear by a regularly lioensed attorney at law, Brandstein 

v. White Lamps. Ino., 20 F. Supp. 369; kullin-Johnson Compaq 

V. Penn b¶utual Life Insuranoo CornDaly, 9 P. Supp. 175: NIlIW 

2ersey Photo Bngravlnu ComDapI v. Carl Sav 

95 N. J. %a. 12. 122 ntl. 3-- 107; Blaok ~- and Mite - Operating 

107 'N J L 63, 151 Atl. 6300; 

'73'c0i0. 586. 216 Paa. 718; 

S. '5;. (2) 977; Cglpeqer 

Company. Ino.. V. Grosbart, 

Ben&e v. Triangle Ranoh Cc 

Clark v. Aust' 

Rational Bank vi Tidewater Imurovement Company.-119 Vu. 73. 

89 S.E. 118; Rob 1 8 B. Fowler v. Bank of K entu :ikv. l? KY. 262: 

NIeoel v. Zestern Union 311; 'Detroit BarAsaooiation v. Union Guardian Trust Comoany, 282 &oh. 707, 

IN 

1":4 N: ;: ;:;i 

In re Opinion of the Ju~tIoes,,289 Mass. 607, 

As steited above, we do not find any Texas dealsions 

oonatrulng Section 3 of Artlale 43Oa, quoted above. Under 

Section 2 it has beon held that an offioer of e aorporation 

oan represent the corporation In attempting to oolleot a debt 

belonging to the oorporatlon out of court, even though suoh 

offloer Is not licensed to praotioe law. Dletzel v. State, 

131 Ter. Cr. 279, 98 S. M. (2) 103. We do not believe, however, that the courts of this state would permit a oorporatlon 

to appear in court except by an lndlvldual who is duly llaensed 

to practice law. At common law, a oorporetion did not have 

the right to appear except by attorney. See Osborn v. Bank of 

the United States 9 *heaton, 738, 830; 6 L. Ed. 204. We do 

not believe that $eotion 3 of Artiole 430a should be construed 

to per&t a cor?or?tlon to appear In court by an unlicensed 

agent or representctlve. A oorporatlon is essentlelly different 

from a natural person, in that a natural person onn aot and 
htr. b’orrls G. Rosenthal, May 5, 1939, Pago 5 

appear for his&elf, but a corporation must always 8ot through 

its agent or representative. The ofiiaer or agent oi the corporetlon who undertakes to mpresent it in court Is necessarily 

acting In a representative capacity for a separate and dlstlnct 

entity, to wit, the corporation. He may or nay not have the 

authority to bind the oorporatlon by ?is acts, but In any oase 

It 1s the individual who appears before tho court, and not the 

corporation. The courts have the Inherent power to presorlbe 

the quallficatlons of lndlvlduals appeari% before them in a 

representative ,capacIty and, for that purpose, to require that 

such IndlvIEuals shall be duly llconsed to praotlce law. Thls 

power In ofSect would be destroyed if aorporatlons oould be 

represented by ;!ersohs aot licensed to practlao law. m tb 

simple expedient ot obtalnlng his election or l aployment a8 

an ofrioer or agent of a oorporatlon, a parson othenvlse lneligible to appear in court in a representative oapaoity oould 

win the right to represent the corporation and, in effect, to 

represent all of the lndlvlduals who sight have invested in the 

corporation, to the extent of their investcant theraln. We do 

not belleve that as a xatter of polloy the statute should be 

construed 80 as to persit this to be done. Furthsmore, w do 

not believe that the statute should be donetrued ao as to parLit unlicensed individuals to represent oorporatlona la oourt 

in view oi the doubt that might be raised as to the oonatitutlonallty of the statute under such construotlon. Such doubt 

would ha based on the grounde that under such oonstruotlon the 

statute might constitute an invasion by the legislature of the 

powers oonrerred by the aonstltutlon on the judlaial branoh of 

the govermient. C&pare In re Opinion of the Justlooa, SE49 l&ass. 

607, 194 N. E. 313. 

The question remains as to what was the intention of 

the Le&ileture In providing In Section 3 that “It shall be unlawful for any corporation to praotlce law as defined by this 

Aot or to ap-$ar ai au attorney for any person other than ltself....” It IS our 0pin10r! that the Word8 *O%f~er than lt- 

%?$?' were used 80 as to %ake It plain that a COspOsatiOn is 

not prevented frorti hiring a regular staff of lawyers to appear 

and represent it In court. In a sense, Such action by the 

cozporatlon Light be oonstrued to constitute the Indirect practice of the law by the corporntion i’or itself, but such action 

IS not 1l:egel beceuse the COspOsation b:- so dOinc IS SOCUring 

legal representation for Itself and not for other persons. ?je 

believe that the iegieleture had in v.Ind certain ca6es wherein 

It has been held that a corporstlon is Indirectly praOtIoIug 

ltiw w.mre it, in elfect, hire8 a stafP ,-f lawyers and furnishes 
1:r . Korris G. hosenthal, Kay 5, 1939, Page 6 

legal representation to other persons. See In re ?:aclub or 

America, (Xass.) 3 X. E. (2) 272, 105 A. L. R. 1300; 

v. B.otorIsts Association or Illinois, 354 Ill. 595, 12 2-i%. 

e27 United Statss Title Gunrantv Co&i:anv v. Brown, 217 N. Y. 

628; 111 s. ??. 8.20. 

by [sing the words 

!?e think that the Legislature Intended, 

"other than itself," to nake It plain that 

a oorporation can hire a regular legal staff to represent it, 

but that the Legislature did not Intend to oonfer on corporatlon8 the right to be represented eroept by agent8 or attorneys 

who have been duly lloensed to practice law. 

v 

You are accordingly advised that a person, not lloeneed 

to practice law In this state, may not appear In the justloe 

courts as agent or aa attorney In fact ror another person or a 

corporation and rile for such pereon or oorporation eurits for 

forcible detalner or for colleotlon of open aocounts or not88. 

Your seoond question 1s aa follows: 

"Is the praotioe of law in municipal oourts 

forbidrlen by Artlole 430a of the Penal Code?* 

!.:unIoipal or corporation courts have been oreated by 

the legislature under the authority of Article 5, Seotion 1, of 

the Constitution of Texas, which reads in part as followe: 

"Seotlon 1. The judloial power of this State 

shall be vested in one %oreme Court; in 

Courts of Civil Appeals, In a Court of CrImlnal Appeals, In District Courts, in County 

Courts, In Conuk3sIoners CoGt.8, In Courts 

of Justices of the Peaoe, and in such other 

courts as may be provided by law. 

n . . . . . . . . 

"The Legislature my establlsh such other 

courts as It my deem necessary end prescribe 

the jurisdiction and organization thereof, 

and &ay conforffi the jurisdlctloc of the District and other Inferior courts thereto." 

my Article 1194 of the Fievised Civil CtatUtes, s 

corporation court is created and established for each incorporated city, town, and village in the State, and by article 
hire Morris 0. Rosenthal, li;ay 5, 1939, Page 7 

1195, Revised Civil Statutes, jurisdiction 1s COnierr8d on the . . corporation courts over criminal cases arising unaer city 

ordlnanoes and, concurrently with the justloes of the peaoe, 

over criminal cases arising under "the criminal laws of this 

State." These statutes have been held to be constitutional. 

Ex parte Wilbarger, 41 Tex. Cr. 514, 55 S. W. 960; K10kman 

V. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 125, lS3 S. Vi. 1180. The cormn 

court clearly appears to be "8 court" upon which *judioial 

power" has been conlerred by the statutes, and you are therefore advised thnt practice of the law in municipal or oorporation courts by persons not licensed to practice law 1s rorbidden by Article 43Ga of the Fenal Code. Compare Gregory v. 

City ot Memphle, 157 Tenn. 68, 6 S. W. (2) 332. 

Your third question 1s as follows: 

"Is the request for or an agreement to a 

postponement, oontlnuanoe, resettlnc or 

dismissal of a case the praotloe of law 

within the meaning or Artlole 43Oa of the 

Penal Code?" 

It seems to be clear that Seotlon 2 oi Artlole 430a 

was intended to apply to all of the aots named in your question, 

inasmuch as this seotlon covers "any aot in oonneotlon with 

prooee4Ings pending or prospective before a court...." Compare 

Harklns v. Murphy and Bolanz, 112 S. W. 136, cited above. You 

are thereiore advised that a request for or an agreement to a 

postponement, continuance, resetting or dismissal of a oase 

oonstitutes practice oi the law within the meaning of Artlole 

430a of t-he Penal Code. 

Your fourth question Is as follows: 

"Is the appearance'for an entering a plea of 

guilty for another the practice of law within 

the meaning of Article 430a of the Penal Code?* 

l::e assue that your question Is limited to misdemeanor 

oases. In connection with t'-Is question, Article 518 of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure provides In part as follows: 

"A plea of' guilty In a misdemeanor oase may 

be made either by the defendant or his counsel 

in open Court...." 
Er. Morris G. Rosenthal, Ray 5, 1939, Page 8 

Under this article It has been held that only the 

defendant or his lawyer may appear, and that persons not 

lloensed to practice law oannot appear ror the defendant and 

enter a plea of guilty. Ex part.8 Jones, 46 Tex. Cr. 433, 

80 s. i2‘. 995; , 76 Tex. Cr. 415, 175 S. W. 

697; Ex part0 Tex. Cr. 639, 177 S. W. 89. 

You are, therefore, advised that the appeartmoe for 

and entering a plea of guilty ror another oonsbl$ubQr the 

praotioe of the law within the meaning of Artlolr 430a of the 

Penal Code. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GFhZpAL OF TEXAS 

James P. Hart 

Assistant 

JFR:FL 

APPROVED: 

Ati ;.A%