Value Stream Commercial Servs. v. Dir.

2016 Ark. App. 460
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 5, 2016
DocketE-16-248
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 Ark. App. 460 (Value Stream Commercial Servs. v. Dir.) 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
Value Stream Commercial Servs. v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 460 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 460

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-16-248

Opinion Delivered October 5, 2016

VALUE STREAM COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS SERVICES, LLC BOARD OF REVIEW APPELLANT [NO. 2016-BR-00628]

V.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND DICKIE OHLER APPELLEES APPEAL DISMISSED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Value Stream Commercial Services, LLC, a corporation, appeals from the Arkansas

Board of Review’s 17 May 2016 decision affirming the Appeal Tribunal and finding that

the claimant, Dickie Ohler, was entitled to benefits because he quit with good cause

connected with the work. We dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction.

On 2 June 2016, Value Stream filed its petition for appeal with this court. The

petition was signed by Scott Lybrand, who is not a licensed attorney. It is well settled that

corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys. Smithco Invs. of W. Memphis, Inc. v.

Morgan Keegan & Co., 370 Ark. 477, 261 S.W.3d 454 (2007). 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 submitting himself or herself to the jurisdiction of a court, those

actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are a nullity. Id. Here, Lybrand is not an attorney

1 Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 460

and may not represent Value Stream in this case. Our caselaw makes it clear that invoking

the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law. Stephens Prod. Co. v. Bennett,

2015 Ark. App. 617. Because Lybrand was practicing law when he signed the petition, the

petition is null and void. See id. As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

ABRAMSON and KINARD, JJ., agree.

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

Related

Smithco Investments of West Memphis, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
261 S.W.3d 454 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2007)
Stephens Prod. Co. v. Bennett
2015 Ark. App. 617 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 Ark. App. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/value-stream-commercial-servs-v-dir-arkctapp-2016.