Laskowitz v. Shellenberger

107 F. Supp. 397, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3811

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 27, 1952
• Docket: 12258-T
• Status: Published

Opinion

TOLIN, District Judge.

The Court is asked to permit .withdrawal óf R. Wéltón Whann,' Ésq., John C. Allen, Esq., and.Robert M. McManigal, Esq. as attorneys .for Craft Furniture Mfg. Co., a corporation. They are the only attorneys of record for said defendant. The case is at issue, . .

Said defendant consents to the withdrawal by a document bearing its seal .filed with the Court. .The..Court does not consent: to the withdrawal of attorneys. Approval would leave a corporate defendant without representation. _ Even if a defendant assumes to represent himself, he must either enter his first appearance in the case m propria persona or, be substituted for whoever appeared as his attorney. Defendant .appropriately does not. offer to do this .because, being a corporation, it is without capacity to either represent others or itself.

For' authorities discussing the principles involved, see cases cited to support the following quotation from Cal.Jur. Ten Year.Supplement, 1949, Revision, Vol. 9, Sec. 15, p. 448, where the applicable rules are stated as follows:

“Since a corporation cannot practice law, and can only act through the ■agency of natural persons, it follows that it can appear in court on its own ■behalf only through a licensed attorney. It cannot appear by an officer of the corporation who is not an attorney, and may not even file a complaint except by an attorney, whose authority to appear is presumed; in other words, a corporation cannot appear in propria persona. A judgment rendered in such a proceeding is void.”

In any event a withdrawal of attorneys is not the proper course. A substitution of attorneys approved by the Court is the method of changing representation. The purported withdrawal of attorneys is disallowed.