Court Opinion

ID: 9372739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 15:02:00.441492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.180698
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 102
                     ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                          DIVISION I
                                          No. E-22-22

                                                  Opinion Delivered February   22, 2023
IHOP #1914
                                  APPELLANT
                                                  APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V.                                                BOARD OF REVIEW
                                                  [NO. 2021-BR-03917]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES
                                    APPELLEE DISMISSED

                                    MIKE MURPHY, Judge

        Appellant IHOP #1914 (IHOP) appeals from the Arkansas Board of Review’s

 December 13, 2021 decision finding that the claimant, Tanaly Godwin, was entitled to

 benefits because she was discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct. We

 dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction.

        IHOP filed its petition for appeal with this court on January 10, 2022. The notice of

 appeal was signed by Angela Delt. Delt is not an attorney licensed to practice in Arkansas. It

 is well-settled law that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys. Bank of

 Fayetteville NA v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 96. Furthermore, our supreme court has held that

 when a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the interests of

 others by submitting to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the filing of

 pleadings, are rendered a nullity. Id.
       Here, Delt indicated on the petition for review that IHOP was not represented by an

attorney, and she signed the petition. Because Delt is not an attorney, she may not represent

IHOP in this case. Id. Our case law makes it clear that invoking the process of a court of law

constitutes the practice of law. Steel v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 377. Because Delt was practicing

law when she signed the petition, the petition is null and void. Id. As a result, we lack

jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. See Super 8 Motel v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 555.

       Dismissed.

       VIRDEN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

       Tanaly Goodwin, pro se appellant.

       Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.

                                              2