OFFICE ‘OFTHE 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: OpInIonNo. &a47 Re: ConstruotIon

_ - _ Kay 5, 1939

of ArtiO+ 430a,

letter or April 15,

for fordlbledetalnar or tor aolleotlon “,,, 0r open aooouots or notes?* %ur &si'qusstion may naturallybe sub-divided Into two"$art?i:

(1) my an unlIoansed Individualappear In the Ju::Cioe

Courts as the agent or attorney In faot for another naturalperson, and (2) iaay an unlioensed Individual appear In the Justloe Courts as the agent or attorney in raot ror a oorporatlon?

The statuteplainly 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 providesas follows:

%aatIon 1. It shall bs unlawful for any aorporatlcnor any parson, rirm or assooiation 

### 0r params, sxoept naturalpersons who are mm&err of the bar regularlyaa

### dttea and llaonsed,to praotlaa law. T3eatIon 2.

. .. ....Whoever (a) In a representativeaapaoltyappears 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 determineoontrorersias in the axeraise or the judlalalpower of the State or sub

### aitiaion thereof;.......~. 0 ( ) For a aonsideration,raward, or pe$ounIarybanarlt, 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 preventionor ths redress of a wrong or the enforaament or establlshmsnt

of a right;

. . . . . . . ..I8 praatlolng law." Independently

of thla statutoryprovision, 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~errordismIssea1. The atatute speoIrIoally

applies to prooeedlngs before a justloa 

### 0r the peaae, and embraoes "any act In oonneotloo with prooeeaingspending cr prospectIve,W and thereforeapplies to suits for forolbledetalner or for oollaotlonof 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 lioensedMr. 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 Indlvldunlwho Is not regulc\rly employedby the oorporotion, but who is hired merely to representthe corporationIn court,would hove to be licensedto prnottoo l&r before he could appeilr

for the aorporation. However, there Is a oonfllatof authority in othar jurisdictions on the right of the aorporatlonto be representedIn court by one of Its regular orrioers or employees,who Is not lloensed to praotloe law. The oonrliotarises out or the questionor 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

aorporatlonto 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 ludialalbody or any board or aomalsslonof-the State - 

### 0r Texas; *

. ............ With referenceto 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 representedby any or Its regular oifloers or einployees, even though such offlaer or eaployea 1s not llaensad to preotloe law. This view was reaentlyadoptedby the supreme Court of Tennaasee In the oase of I&vert$ furnitureCo&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 unlloensadofiioer 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-iieuentMr. Morris G. Rosenthal,May 5, 1939, Page 4

Corporationv. *ueenaBorough Gas and Electria Company 290 N. y. S. @87, 160 MISC. 920, while other deoislonsholi that suoh appearanoeIs void. Mortgaxe Commissionv. Great Neal ImprovementCompany Realty Cornoration:.295 c. Y. s. 07 162 ;clsa. 416; Flnox LI~rmen 296 N:Y. S. 945, 163 klic 070; AberdeenBindery v. Easiern c .,tates 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 corporationosnnot appear In Rroprla persona by an unlicensedoffloer or agent. but that the cornoration must appear by a regularly lioensedattorneyat law, Brandstein v. White Lamps. Ino., 20 F. Supp. 369; kullin-Johnson Compaq V. Penn b¶utual

Life InsuranooCornDaly, 9 P. Supp. 175: NIlIW 2ersey Photo BngravlnuComDapI 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. TriangleRanoh Cc Clark v. Aust' Rational Bank TidewaterImurovementCompany.-119 Vu. 73. vi 89 S.E. 118; Rob 8 B. Fowler v. Bank of K

1 entu :ikv. l? KY. 262: NIeoel v. ZesternUnion 311; 'DetroitBarAsaooiationv. Union GuardianTrust 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 oonatrulngSection 3 of Artlale 43Oa, quoted above. Under Section 2 it has beon held that an offioer of e aorporation oan represent the corporation In attemptingto oolleot a debt belonging to the oorporatlonout of court, even though suoh offloer Is not licensedto 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 oorporetiondid 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?tlonto appear In courtby an unlicensed agent or representctlve. A oorporatlonis essentlellydifferent from a natural person, in that a natural person onn aot andhtr. 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 corporetlonwho undertakesto mpresent it in court Is necessarily acting In a representative capacity for a separateand dlstlnct entity, to wit, the corporation. He may or nay not have the authorityto bind the oorporatlonby ?is acts, but In any oase It 1s the individual who appears before tho court, and not the corporation. The courts have the Inherentpower to presorlbe the quallficatlons of lndlvlduals

appeari% before them in a representative

,capacIty

and, for that purpose,to require that such IndlvIEualsshall be duly llconsed to praotlcelaw. Thls power In ofSectwould be destroyed if aorporatlons oould be representedby ;!ersohs aot licensed to practlaolaw. m tb simple expedientot obtalnlnghis election or l aploymenta8 an ofrioer or agent of a oorporatlon, a parson othenvlselneligible to appear in court in a representative oapaoityoould win the right to representthe corporation and, in effect, to representall of the lndlvlduals who sight have investedin the corporation,to the extent of their investcant theraln. We do not belleve that as a xatter of polloy the statute should be construed80 as to persit this to be done. Furthsmore, w do not believe that the statute should be donetrued ao as to parLit unlicensedindividualsto representoorporatlonala oourt in view oi the doubt that might be raised as to the oonatitutlonalltyof the statute under such construotlon. Such doubt would ha based on the grounde that under such oonstruotlonthe statute might constitutean invasionby the legislature of the powers oonrerredby the aonstltutlon on the judlaialbranoh of the govermient. C&pare In re Opinion of the Justlooa,SE49 l&ass. 607, 194 N. E. 313.

The questionremains as to what was the intentionof the Le&ileture In providingIn Section 3 that “It shall be unlawful for any corporationto 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 preventedfrorti 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 constitutethe Indirectpractice of the law by the corporntioni’or itself,but such action IS not 1l:egelbeceuse the COspOsation b:- so dOinc IS SOCUring legal representation for Itself and not for other persons. ?je believe that the iegieleturehad in v.Ind certain ca6es wherein It has been held that a corporstlonis Indirectly praOtIoIug ltiw w.mre it, in elfect, hire8 a stafP ,-f lawyers and furnishes1: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

Associationor Illinois,354 Ill. 595, 2-i%. 12 e27 United Statss Title GunrantvCo&i:anv v. Brown, 217 N. Y. 628; 111 s. ??.

8.20. by [sing the words !?e think that the LegislatureIntended, "other than itself,"to nake It plain that a oorporationcan hire a regular legal staff to representit, but that the Legislaturedid not Intend to oonfer on corporatlon8 the right to be representederoept by agent8 or attorneys who have been duly lloensed to practice law. v

You are accordinglyadvised 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 oorporationeurits for forcibledetalner or for colleotlonof open aocounts or not88.

Your seoond question 1s aa follows:
"Is the praotioeof law in municipal oourts forbidrlen

by Artlole 430a of the Penal Code?* !.:unIoipal

or corporationcourts have been oreated by the legislature under the authorityof Article 5, Seotion 1, of the Constitutionof Texas, which reads in part as followe:

"Seotlon 1. The judloialpower 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 providedby law.

n

.. ...... "The Legislature

my establlshsuch other courts as It my deem necessaryend 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 corporationcourt is created and establishedfor each incorporatedcity, town, and village in the State, and by articlehire Morris 0. Rosenthal,li;ay 5, 1939, Page 7

1195, Revised Civil Statutes, jurisdiction1s COnierr8don the

. . corporationcourts over criminal cases arising unaer city ordlnanoesand, 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 clearlyappears to be "8 court" upon which *judioial power" has been conlerredby the statutes,and you are therefore advised thnt practiceof the law in municipalor oorporation courts by personsnot licensed to practice law 1s rorbidden by Article 43Ga of the Fenal Code. Compare Gregoryv. 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,

resettlncor dismissal of a case the praotloeof 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, inasmuchas this seotlon covers "any aot in oonneotlon with prooee4Ingspending or prospective before a court...." Compare Harklnsv. Murphy and Bolanz, 112 S. W. 136, cited above. You are thereioreadvised that a request for or an agreementto a postponement,

continuance,

resettingor dismissalof a oase oonstitutespracticeoi the law within the meaning of Artlole 430a of t-he

Penal Code.
Your fourth questionIs as follows:
"Is the appearance'for an entering a plea of guilty for another the practiceof 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 Procedureprovides In part as follows:

"A plea of'

guilty In a misdemeanoroase may be made either by the defendantor his counsel in open Court...."Er. Morris G. Rosenthal, Ray 5, 1939, Page 8

Under this article It has been held that only the defendantor his lawyermay appear, and that personsnot lloensed to practice law oannot appear ror the defendantand 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 appeartmoefor and enteringa plea of guilty ror another oonsbl$ubQrthe 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%