 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byers-Watts v. Parker3/1/2001
onstitutes the "practice of law." See In re Fleischman, 188 Ariz. 106, 110, 933 P.2d 563, 567 (1997) ("The practice of law consists of 'those acts, whether performed in court or in the law office, which lawyers customarily have carried on from day to day through the centuries . . . includ . . . representing another before a court . . . .") (quoting State Bar of Ariz. v. Ariz. Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 95, 366 P.2d 1, 14 (1961)). Significantly, although the supreme court authorizes certain non-attorneys to represent others in specified judicial and administrative proceedings, the court does not include general guardians, guardians ad litem, next friends, or similar fiduciaries within these exceptions. See R. Ariz. Sup. Ct. 31(a)(4). In light of this omission, we are persuaded that the court did not intend A.R.C.P. 17(g) to authorize non-lawyer guardians and like representatives to provide legal representation for their minor charges.
Our conclusion is further bolstered by federal court decisions that have interpreted F.R.C.P. 17(c). See Devine v. Indian River County Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11 th Cir. 1997) (Rule 17(c) "permits authorized representatives, including parents, to sue on behalf of minors, but does not confer any right upon such representatives to serve as legal counsel."); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10 th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)(Under Rule 17(c), "a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next friend if the parent is not represented by an attorney.").
Other federal courts have reached similar holdings based on policy considerations. See, e.g., Wenger v. Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., 146 F.3d 123, 125 (2 nd Cir. 1998) (The court has a duty to prohibit non-lawyer guardians from providing legal representation because "' he infant is always the ward of every court wherein his rights or property are brought into jeopardy.'") (quoting Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9 th Cir. 1997)); Johns, 114 F.3d at 877 (Whether a parent can bring a pro se lawsuit on behalf of a minor "'falls squarely within the ambit of the principles that militate against allowing non-lawyers to represent others in court.'")(quoting Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168, 172 (E.D. Va 1994)); Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3 rd Cir. 1991) (" non-lawyer appearing pro se, was not entitled to play the role of attorney for his children . . . .").
As explained by the court in Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2 nd Cir. 1990):
The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law . . . cannot determine their own legal actions. There is thus no individual choice to proceed pro se for courts to respect, and the sole policy at stake concerns the exclusion of non-licensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others.
It goes without saying that it is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.
See also DuPont v. S. Nat'l Bank of Houston, Tex., 771 F.2d 874, 882 (5 th Cir. 1985) (because infant is always ward, infant "'is entitled to the most jealous care that no injustice be done to him.'") (quoting Friends for All Children v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 725 F.2d 1392, 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
We agree with the federal courts' conclusions and rationales and adopt them as our own. Byers-Watts cites multiple cases and treatises that she claims support her interpretation of A.R.C.P. 17(g). These cases, however,
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|