Motel 6 – Unik Group v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2026 Ark. App. 10
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 14, 2026
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 Ark. App. 10 (Motel 6 – Unik Group v. Director, Division of Workforce Services) 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.

Bluebook
Motel 6 – Unik Group v. Director, Division of Workforce Services, 2026 Ark. App. 10 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 10 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. E-25-120

Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026

MOTEL 6 – UNIK GROUP APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

V. [NO. 2025-BR-00448]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES DISMISSED APPELLEE

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge Appellant Motel 6 – Unik Group (Motel 6) appeals from the Arkansas Board of

Review’s August 29, 2025 decision dismissing as untimely its appeal of a finding that the

claimant, Leporche Reed, was entitled to benefits because she was discharged from last work

for reasons other than misconduct. We dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Motel 6 filed its petition for appeal with this court on September 18, 2025. The notice

of appeal was signed by S. Bhakta. Bhakta is not an attorney licensed to practice in Arkansas.

It is well-settled law that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys. IHOP

#1914 v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 102. 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

1 submitting to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are

rendered a nullity. Id.

Here, Bhakta stated on the petition for review that Motel 6 was not represented by

an attorney, and Bhakta signed the petition. Bhakta, a nonattorney, may not represent Motel

6 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 Bhakta was

practicing law by signing 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.

BARRETT and THYER, JJ., agree.

S. Bhakta, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nucor Steel. v. Dir.
2016 Ark. App. 377 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2016)
Ihop 1914 v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2023 Ark. App. 102 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2023)
Super 8 Motel v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, and Hannah Young
2019 Ark. App. 555 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 Ark. App. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motel-6-unik-group-v-director-division-of-workforce-services-arkctapp-2026.