Opinion

Ihop 1914 v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

  • 2023 Ark. App. 102
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Feb 22, 2023
Status
Published
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.3%

holding that when a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the interests of others by submitting himself or herself to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity

How later courts described this case

  • holding that when a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the interests of others by submitting himself or herself to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity
  • holding that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.