Opinion ID: 874347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Andersens are prohibited from representing A & B Partnership and A & B LLC in a pro se capacity under Idaho law.

Text: For the first time on appeal, Indian Springs argues the Andersens are prohibited from representing A & B Partnership or A & B LLC in a pro se capacity. Indian Springs asserts that the Andersens' representation of these business entities constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Generally, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. However, the Andersens did not represent the partnership or the limited liability company until this appeal; [6] accordingly, this is Indian Springs's first opportunity to raise the issue. Therefore, we will consider Indian Springs's argument. Idaho Code § 3-104 sets forth that no person shall practice law in the State of Idaho without first having been admitted to practice by the Idaho Supreme Court. In order to protect the public against the unauthorized practice of law, the Idaho Legislature has provided laws and provisions under Title 3, Chapter 4 of the Idaho Code governing the granting of the privilege to practice law and its subsequent use, control, and regulation. I.C. § 3-401 et seq. The Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar (Board) was formed to carry out the provisions of the Act. I.C. § 3-402. The Board is responsible for investigating and making recommendations upon any matter relating to the practice of law per request of the governor, the Idaho Supreme Court, or the legislature. I.C. § 3-418. Although Indian Springs argues there is no Idaho case law on point, this Court has previously held that a pro se appellant may not represent a business entity. The issue was first raised in White v. Idaho Forest Indus., 98 Idaho 784, 572 P.2d 887 (1977). In that case, White, an unemployment compensation claimant, appealed from an Industrial Commission order denying him benefits. 98 Idaho at 785, 572 P.2d at 888. Throughout the course of the proceedings, Idaho Forest Industries was represented by the Gibbons Company. Id. at 788, 572 P.2d at 891. The Gibbons Company prepared and signed pleadings, introduced evidence, and examined witnesses. Id. During oral argument, it was brought to the Court's attention that the employee who had performed these legal tasks for the Gibbons Company was not a licensed attorney. Id. The Court determined that if this was true, there may be a violation of I.C. § 3-410 and its prohibition against the unlicensed practice of law. Id. The Court noted it was irrelevant that the practice was before an administrative body instead of a judicial body because the rules against the unauthorized practice of law apply equally to both. Id. Accordingly, the Court directed the Board to conduct a complete investigation into the matter. Id. The Board released its findings in a letter addressed to the Idaho Industrial Commission dated March 3, 1980. The letter stated: [T]he Board is of the opinion that except for individuals who might always represent themselves, business entities who appear before the Industrial Commission or a Referee should be represented by attorneys in good standing and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho [or by the highest court of the state in which they are admitted to practice law]. Letter from John Simko, Comm'r of the Idaho State Bar, to Will Defenbach, Indus. Comm'n (Mar. 3, 1980). The Court later referenced this letter in Kyle v. Beco Corp., 109 Idaho 267, 271, 707 P.2d 378, 382 (1985), thereby formally adopting the rule that business entities (other than individuals) must be represented by attorneys before the Idaho Industrial Commission. The rule applies equally to the practice of law before a judicial body. See White v. Idaho Forest Indus., 98 Idaho 784, 788, 572 P.2d 887, 891 (1977) (citing 2 A.L.R.3d 724 (1965)). In sum, the law in Idaho is that a business entity, such as a corporation, limited liability company, or partnership, must be represented by a licensed attorney before an administrative body or a judicial body. Therefore, we hold the Andersens are prohibited from representing A & B Partnership and A & B LLC in a pro se capacity. Accordingly, we dismiss all claims the Andersens make on behalf of the partnership and the limited liability company, as these business entities have not made an appropriate appearance or argument before the Court.