Harding Logistics Inc. v. Director
This text of Harding Logistics Inc. v. Director (Harding Logistics Inc. v. Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 355 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. E-26-42
HARDING LOGISTICS INC. Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2026-BR-00026]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES DISMISSED APPELLEE
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
The claimant, Michael Kirkham, timely appealed to the Appeal Tribunal an Agency
determination denying his application for unemployment benefits because he had quit his
last job without good cause connected to the work. The Tribunal affirmed the denial of
benefits, so Kirkham appealed that decision to the Board of Review. On February 19, 2026,
the Board issued its decision reversing the Tribunal’s decision and granted Kirkham, the
claimant, unemployment benefits. The employer, Harding Logistics Inc., timely appealed
that decision to this court. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On March 16, 2026, Harding Logistics filed its petition with this court. This petition
was signed by Randy Harding, the president of the company, who is not a licensed attorney.
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. 1
Additionally, Harding indicated in the petition that Harding Logistics, a corporation,
was not represented by an attorney. Because he is not an attorney, he cannot represent
Harding Logistics in this case.2 It is well settled that invoking the process of a court of law
constitutes the practice of law.3 Therefore, since Harding is not an attorney and was
practicing law when he signed the petition, the petition is null and void.4 As a result, we lack
jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.
Dismissed.
ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Randy Harding, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.
1 Nirvana Med. Spa v. Dir., 2024 Ark. App. 284 (citing IHOP #1914 v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 102 (holding that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys)).
2 Id.
3 Super 8 Motel v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 555.
4 Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harding Logistics Inc. v. Director, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-logistics-inc-v-director-arkctapp-2026.