Title: State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Williams
Citation: 246 Kan. 681, 793 P.2d 234
Docket Number: 63,765
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 1990

246 Kan. 681 (1990)
793 P.2d 234
STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. ROBERT T. STEPHAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Petitioner,
v.
FRANKLIN DEE WILLIAMS, Respondent.
No. 63,765

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 25, 1990.
Steve A. Schwarm and Daniel P. Kolditz, assistant attorneys general, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, and John W. Campbell, deputy attorney general, were with them for the petitioner.
Franklin Dee Williams, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
*682 Per Curiam:
This is an original action in quo warranto filed by the State of Kansas (State or petitioner), on the relation of the Attorney General of Kansas, to enjoin and restrain Franklin Dee Williams (respondent) from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
The State filed its petition on May 19, 1989, and on the 8th day of June 1989 this court ordered Williams to respond to the petition on or before July 3, 1989. On July 3, 1989, Williams filed a voluminous document which purports to be an answer to the State's petition and further attempts to assert claims for relief in quo warranto and mandamus and by way of a cross-claim and counterclaim.
On July 13, 1989, the court appointed the Hon. Frederick Woleslagel, district judge retired, as Commissioner to conduct evidentiary proceedings and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order provides:
The petition of the State alleged that Williams had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several district court cases including North Central Kansas Production Credit Association v. Hansen, et al., 85-C-07, Republic County; The Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Linn, 88-C-20, Morris County; and Williams v. Postal Savings and Loan Association, 88-CV-528, Shawnee County. It is alleged that in most of his court appearances Williams claims to represent the Kansas Territorial Agricultural Society (KTAS or Society) as an attorney and counselor for the *683 Society. Williams signed pleadings on behalf of the KTAS, issued unauthorized cease and desist orders, and in the Morris County proceedings, examined and cross-examined witnesses. Williams is no stranger to this court, and we can take judicial notice of the fact that he has appeared in various courts of this State purporting to be an attorney and purporting to represent the KTAS and others.
The respondent's answer, like most of his pleadings, is for all practical purposes unintelligible. The task of the Commissioner, and of this court, was made extremely difficult due to Williams' lack of any understanding or knowledge of basic legal principles, proper procedure, or the role of an attorney in the American legal system. The Commissioner and this court have been flooded with voluminous, maundering pleadings which defy comprehension and interpretation. The various pleadings of the respondent would appear to assert certain alleged defenses which are totally frivolous and have no basis in law. They include (1) a lack of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear this matter; (2) that Williams is himself the Attorney General of Kansas; (3) that Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, was not properly elected to his office; (4) that Attorney General Stephan and the assistant attorneys general appearing in this case are not entitled to represent the State and are not authorized to practice law; and (5) that Williams is authorized by the charter of the KTAS to represent the Society and appear as an attorney on its behalf.
The Commissioner held a pretrial and discovery conference on September 25, 1989, and an evidentiary hearing on October 25, 1989. Following the October hearing, the parties were granted time in which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, on December 22, 1989, Commissioner Woleslagel filed his report consisting of findings of fact and conclusions of law and, on January 12, 1990, the respondent filed his exceptions to the Commissioner's report. In April, the parties presented oral argument to this court and respondent filed a twelve-page written argument to supplement his oral remarks.
A review of the voluminous record reveals that the respondent does not deny that he has engaged in the practice of law without being authorized to do so by the Kansas Supreme Court. He asserts that he derives his authority to practice law and appear *684 as an attorney from the KTAS, which was originally established by 1855 Kansas Territorial Laws, ch. 58, § 1 et seq. Respondent asserts § 1 of the said laws grants the KTAS authority to name persons as attorneys entitled to practice law on its behalf even though such persons are not admitted to practice law by the Kansas Supreme Court. In fact, the language respondent relies upon is found in the by-laws of the KTAS and not in the territorial laws.
Commissioner Woleslagel's report reads:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Williams does not fall within any category.
We concur with and adopt Commissioner Woleslagel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to permanently enjoin the respondent from the unauthorized practice of law in Kansas. In doing so, we deem it advisable to comment briefly on the facts and issues in this case.
*689 In determining what constitutes the "practice of law" no precise, all-encompassing definition is advisable, even if it were possible. Every matter asserting the unauthorized practice of law must be considered on its own facts on a case-by-case basis. In State v. Schumacher, 214 Kan. 1, 519 P.2d 1116 (1974), we stated:
In State, ex rel., v. Perkins, 138 Kan. 899, 28 P.2d 765 (1934), the attorney general filed an original action in quo warranto to enjoin the defendant from the unauthorized practice of law in Kansas. We held:
In the instant case, the respondent does not deny that he has signed pleadings in various lawsuits in the district courts of this state, that he has assisted others in preparing pleadings, that he has appeared on behalf of others at hearings in court, that he has examined witnesses, and that he has attempted to perform the services of an attorney. His explanation of his actions is that he is authorized to act as an attorney by the KTAS.
Whatever else may be said about the present status of the Kansas Territorial Agricultural Society, it is not a corporation or entity established by statute. We agree with Commissioner Woleslagel that whatever status was given the KTAS by the 1855 Territorial Statutes has long since been abolished by subsequent acts of the legislatures of the Territory of Kansas and the State of Kansas. The KTAS is not incorporated under the laws of the State of Kansas and has no legal existence as a corporate entity. At best, the KTAS, if it exists at all, is a voluntary unincorporated association of individuals without separate legal status. In any event, it can only be represented in Kansas courts by a duly licensed attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas by order of this court.
In Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist., 198 Cal. App. 3d 576, 243 Cal. Rptr. 799 (1988), the *691 California court reasoned that "an unincorporated association resembles a corporation more than it does an individual" and thus the rule that a corporation cannot appear in court without a licensed attorney applies to unincorporated associations. 198 Cal. App. 3d  at 578-79.
In State v. Settle, 129 N.H. 171, 523 A.2d 124 (1987), the New Hampshire court determined that a statute authorizing a party to appear "in his proper person" refers to self-representation and does not permit an individual to represent an incorporated or unincorporated association. 129 N.H. at 176. The court also referred to "centuries of historical precedent" and the "overwhelming weight of authority to this day" establishing that a corporation must be represented by an attorney and determined that the same rules apply to unincorporated associations. 129 N.H. at 176-77. See also James D. Pauls, Ltd., v. Pauls, 633 F. Supp. 34 (S.D. Fla. 1986), where the court held that the general partner of three limited partnerships, who was not an attorney, could not represent the partnerships.
The KTAS does not now have, and never has had, the power to authorize a nonattorney to practice law in Kansas. The authority to admit a person to the bar of Kansas and to authorize the practice of law in Kansas is vested solely in the Kansas Supreme Court.
While respondent may appear in court on his own behalf when he is a named party to pending litigation, he has no right, franchise, or authority to appear for or on behalf of any other person or entity. Nor does he have the right to give legal advice to any other person or entity not admitted to the practice of law, or to assist any such person or entity in any matter requiring legal knowledge and training. While we do not doubt the respondent's sincerity in his beliefs, we cannot condone his actions in asserting his totally unfounded claims that he is authorized to practice law and that he is the Attorney General of Kansas.
The beliefs, allegations, and actions of the respondent might be considered inconsequential, or even comical, if not so serious in their results. Respondent has not only delayed and hindered the courts of this state in their efforts to properly administer the laws and conduct legal proceedings, he has also taken it upon himself to counsel and advise innocent citizens as to their legal *692 rights with absolutely no understanding, training, or knowledge in the law or legal principles pertaining to their problems. Individuals and other entities, including the KTAS, may have been irreparably damaged by the loss of legal rights which might have otherwise been preserved except for reliance upon the legal advice and attempted legal representation of Williams. It is for these very reasons that the Supreme Court of Kansas and the courts of every state in the United States require every person who seeks to practice law to obtain proper training and education. We conclude that Williams has been actively engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that the relief sought by the State of Kansas should be granted.
In closing, we wish to commend Commissioner Woleslagel for his patient, understanding, and professional handling of an extremely difficult task. He has gone to every extreme to assure that the respondent received all the safeguards of due process of law and has extended to respondent every opportunity and leeway to present evidence and propound his views under the most trying and frustrating circumstances.
One final matter remains. The respondent, in direct violation of prior orders of the Commissioner, prepared, signed, and filed frivolous pleadings, and the State has asked that we impose monetary sanctions against the respondent pursuant to K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-211. The Attorney General asserts that he and his staff were required to expend numerous hours in preparing a response to such pleadings and asks that the State of Kansas be reimbursed for such expense and time. While we are of the opinion that the imposition of sanctions in this case would certainly be justified, we decline to do so at this time due to our belief that Williams' actions, while totally frivolous and contrary to law, were sincerely pursued by Williams through ignorance and misunderstanding of the laws of Kansas.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Franklin Dee Williams be and he is hereby permanently enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Kansas including, but not limited to, the unauthorized practice of law in any and all judicial districts and courts in the State of Kansas; appearing in any representative capacity, counseling capacity, or other similar role to assist nonmembers *693 of the bar of the State of Kansas in the presentation of any matters in the courts of the State of Kansas; preparing or filing in any district or appellate court in this state, for or on behalf of another, any pleading or document; appearing for or representing another in any manner in any action or proceeding pending in any district or appellate court in this state; and counseling or advising any nonmember of the bar of the State of Kansas on any legal matter whatsoever.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent, Franklin Dee Williams, shall forthwith pay the costs of this action to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any violations of the orders of this court by Franklin Dee Williams shall constitute contempt of court and shall subject Franklin Dee Williams to the sanctions provided by law, and such sanctions may be imposed by any court in which such violations occur.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the clerks of the district courts of the State of Kansas shall refuse to receive and file any pleadings signed or prepared by Franklin Dee Williams in any proceedings except when he is a named party and the pleading or document is submitted solely on his own behalf.