“It is fundamental . . . that a ‘corporation is a distinct legal entity separate from its stockholders and from its officers.’” (quoting Maxwell Cafe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 298 P.2d 64, 68 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956))
How later courts described this case
- “It is fundamental . . . that a ‘corporation is a distinct legal entity separate from its stockholders and from its officers.’” (quoting Maxwell Cafe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 298 P.2d 64, 68 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956))
- refusing a writ of mandamus allowing a corporation to appear through a non-attorney agent in municipal court
- invalidating statutory authorization for nonlawyer representation in justice and municipal courts
- “It is fundamental, of course, that a 25 corporation is a distinct legal entity separate from its stockholders and from its officers.” 26 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, J.
I dissent. It may be that section 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a perfect answer to the vexing problem of participation by nonlawyers in adjudicatory proceedings. The majority of this court now intervenes, however, to restrict seriously the Legislature’s power to seek imaginative and improved answers to that vexing problem.
I am not persuaded here that the Legislature has violated the vague commands in article III, section 3 of the California Constitution. Nor am I persuaded that the word “court” (compared, say, with the phrase “administrative tribunal”) should trigger automatically the monopoly that some people think inheres in article VI, section 9 of the Constitution, regarding the State Bar. (Cf. Eagle Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1933) 217 Cal. 244, 247-249 [ 18 P.2d 341 ]; and see Bennett, Non-Lawyers and the Practice of Law Before State and Federal Agencies (I960) 46 A.B.A.J. 705; State Bar Reports (Dec. 1977-Jan. 1978) p. 14 [“90,000 California lawyers in 1984”].)
Bird, C. J., concurred.