# Motel 6 – Unik Group v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · January 14, 2026 · 2026 Ark. App. 10

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11240832

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 14, 2026
- **Citations:** 2026 Ark. App. 10
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11240832

## Opinion text

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 10
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. E-25-120

Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026

MOTEL 6 – UNIK GROUP APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

V. [NO. 2025-BR-00448]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES DISMISSED
APPELLEE

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Appellant Motel 6 – Unik Group (Motel 6) appeals from the Arkansas Board of

Review’s August 29, 2025 decision dismissing as untimely its appeal of a finding that the

claimant, Leporche Reed, was entitled to benefits because she was discharged from last work

for reasons other than misconduct. We dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Motel 6 filed its petition for appeal with this court on September 18, 2025. The notice

of appeal was signed by S. Bhakta. Bhakta is not an attorney licensed to practice in Arkansas.

It is well-settled law that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys. IHOP

#1914 v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 102. 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

1
submitting to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are

rendered a nullity. Id.

Here, Bhakta stated on the petition for review that Motel 6 was not represented by

an attorney, and Bhakta signed the petition. Bhakta, a nonattorney, may not represent Motel

6 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 Bhakta was

practicing law by signing 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.

BARRETT and THYER, JJ., agree.

S. Bhakta, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11240832. Public record. Not legal advice.