The Attorney General of Texas
November 19, 1981 ---
This Or;nion
MARK WHITE l Aiiirms Oninkm I
Attorney General
1-_-_
#...@!&&L 1
Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. MW-392
Supreme Court Building
P. 0. BOX 1254a
Criminal District Attorney
Austin. TX. 78711 Condemnation Section Re: Representation of corpora-
512/475-2501 Sixth Floor, Records Building tions by non-attorneys in small
Telex 9104874-1367 Dallas, Texas 75202 claims court
Telecopier 512M754266
Dear Mr. Wade:
1M)7 Main St.. Suite 1400
Dallas. TX. 75201 You ask for a re-examination of our conclusion in Attorney
214n428944 General Opinion MU-312 (1981). In this opinion, we concluded that a
corporation must be represented by an attorney in county court or
4824 Albefla Ave.. SUite 160
county court at law in cases involving an appeal to that court from
El Paso. TX. 79905 the small claims court. Attorney General Opinion H-538 (1975)
9151533-3464 concluded that a non-lawyer could represent a corporation in small
claims court. This result was based on the specific statutory
language of section 2 of article 2460a, V.T.C.S., as well as the
1220Dallas Ave.. Suite 202
Hou?~ton.TX. 77002
policies underlying the small claims court statute. Attorney General
7136500666 Opinion MW-312 (1981) found no statutory authority for a non-lawyer to
represent a corporation on appeal from the small claims court to the
county court. Section 12 of article 2460a. the statute governing the
806 Broadway. Suite 312
small claims court. provides that a party could appeal to the county
Lubbock. TX. 79401
Msl747+238
court or county court at lav “in the same manner as is now provided by
statute for appeals from the justice court to the County Court.”
Thus, Attorney General Opinion HW-312 concluded that the trial de nova
4302 N. Tenth. Suite 0 in county court would be governed by Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of
McAllen. TX. 78501 Civil Procedure, which permits individuals, but not corporations. to
3126824547
represent themselves in court. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply
and Machine Service, 437 S.W.Zd 43 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst
2W Main Plaza, Suite UXJ Diat.] 1969, no writ).
San Antonio. TX. 78205
51212254191 You suggest that section 13 of article 2460a should require a
different result. This statute provides in part:
The trial on appeal shall be de nova. but no
further pleadings shall be required and the
procedure shall be the same as that her=
prescribed for the Small Claims Court. (Emphasis
added).
We do not believe this language authorizes a non-attorney to represent
~a corporation in the trial de nova In county court on appeal from the
p. 1333
r, l
I
.v, Honorsble Henry Wade - Page 2 (Mu-392)
small claims court. Section 2 of article 2460a, V.T.C.S., the
statutory basis for the non-lawyer’s appearance In small claims court,
provides for the jurisdiction of the small claims court. Section 2
does not establish procedure to be followed in the trial de nova on
appeal. See Bvke v. City of Corpus Christi. 569 S.W.Zd 927, 931 (Tex.
Clv. App. -Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.). In our opinion,
“procedure” in the context of section 13 refers to pleadings,
evidence, and the judge’s role in the trial. .V.T.C.S. art. 2460a.
517. 9. 11. It does not determine who can practice in county courts.
As we concluded in Attorney General Opinion MW-312. a corporation must
be represented by an attorney in county court or county court at law
in cases involving an appeal to that court from the small claims
court.
SUMMARY
A corporation must be represented by an
attorney in county court or county court at law in
cases involving an appeal to that court from the
small claims court. Section 13 of article 2460a.
V.T.C.S., does not require a contrary result.
A
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Af?torney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan L. Garrison. Chairman
James Allison
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger
p. 1334