QUESTION: I have been a receiver for quite some time and know how the system works. I have a case without much money currently in it. Instead of hiring counsel, can I file pleadings in the bankruptcy court or the district court, on behalf of the receivership estate, or do I need to employ counsel to do so?
ANSWER: A new appellate decision calls into question the ability of a receiver, and, in fact a bankruptcy trustee, to file pleadings and represent the estate (receivership or bankruptcy) in federal court. The case holds that only attorneys can appear and sign pleadings on behalf of the estate, which as most attorneys know is the requirement for corporations or partnerships. The case, In re Shattuck, 411 B. R. 378 (10th Cir. BAP 2009), decided by the 10th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, arose out of a state court receiver for an LLC filing a motion in the bankruptcy court to dismiss the debtors’ chapter 13 case on the ground that the debtors did not meet the eligibility limits under Section 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code due to the fact that the debtors owed the receivership estate in excess of $800,000.00. The receiver filed the motion to dismiss on his own, without the assistance of counsel. The receiver was not an attorney.
The debtors moved to strike the receiver’s motion on the ground that because the receiver was not a licensed attorney he had no authority to file pleadings on behalf of the LLC, citing a District Court of Colorado local rule which is similar, but not exactly the same as, local rules for the district courts in California. The rule provided that: “Only pro se individual parties and members of this court’s bar may appear or sign pleadings, motions or other papers”. The receiver asserted that he was appointed receiver for the LLC by the state court and was appointed to be receiver as an individual and, as an individual, he was appearing pro se.
The bankruptcy court overruled the motion to strike the receiver’s objection on the basis that it felt it had discretion to allow non-lawyers to file pleadings and appear in court on behalf of an entity. The court determined that the debtors’ liabilities exceeded the limits of Section 109(e) and ordered their bankruptcy case dismissed.
On appeal the BAP reversed, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” It held it is “well settled” that a lay person, while allowed to represent himself or herself, may not represent the interests or rights of anyone else. The court held that the statue does not permit artificial entities, such as corporations, partnerships, associations, LLC’s, trusts or estates to prosecute or defend in federal court except through an attorney, admitted to practice in that particular court. The BAP cited a number of authorities in support of its ruling including Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993), where the Supreme Court stated: “It has been the law for the better part of two centuries … that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities … the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that ‘parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,’ does not allow corporations, partnerships or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney”.
As to the receiver’s contention that he was appearing as an individual, the court dismissed that argument because, “as an individual”, the receiver had no personal claim against the debtors. The receiver was not advocating his personal rights, but was acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the receivership estate of the LLC. Because the LLC could not appear in federal court, except through counsel, neither could the receiver. The receiver argued, in addition, that his position as receiver was analogous to that of a trustee of an estate. The BAP held, however, that if a trustee is not a licensed attorney he too lacks the legal capacity to appear and represent an estate in federal court, citing a number of authorities including 9th Circuit and California district court opinions to that affect. These cases state a party may only represent themselves “where they are representing themselves alone, asserting their own personal rights or interests exclusively. If an individual purporting to appear pro se is not the actual ‘beneficial owner of the claims being asserted,’ they are not viewed as a party conducting their ‘own case personally’ within the meaning of the statute, Alpha Land Company v. Little, 238 F.R.D. 497 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
Import of the Decision
While this decision comes from the Tenth Circuit its reasoning appears sound. It has long been the rule in the district and bankruptcy court that only individuals can represent themselves without an attorney. The decision merely applies this long standing rule to a receivership estate, and arguably a bankruptcy estate, both artificial entities. Whether the district courts and bankruptcy courts in California will follow the decision, and possibly apply it to bankruptcy trustees, remains to be seen.
The BAP seemed to feel that if the receiver had been an attorney himself, he would have been permitted to appear and file pleadings on behalf of the receivership estate. While the BAP may have allowed this, the fact that a receiver or a bankruptcy trustee is also an attorney should not empower them to appear on behalf of an estate in federal court unless they have been employed, by either the receivership or the bankruptcy court, to act as an attorney in the case. Generally, receivers and bankruptcy trustees, while they may be attorneys, are not acting in that capacity, and they are not compensated as attorneys.
Both state court rules and bankruptcy rules allow receivers or trustees to be employed as counsel for the estate, although bankruptcy courts are often reluctant to allow a trustee to act as counsel in the case. It appears, therefore, the best course of action for receivers and bankruptcy trustees, when filing pleadings or appearing in district or bankruptcy court (which is merely a division of the district court) is to employ counsel for such purposes. Failure to do so may not only result in the pleading or complaint being stricken, but could subject the receiver to criminal liability for the unauthorized practice of law. Business and Professions Code Section 6125 provides: “No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar”. Section 6126(a) provides that any person practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar is guilty of a misdemeanor, and can be liable for civil penalties and possibly contempt of court.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- “Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Minimum Wage Increases for 2025 | By: Kelly O. Scott
- New Law Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Possessing a Driver's License | By: Tanner Hosfield
- LA City Council Approves $30 Minimum Wage for Hotel and LAX Workers | By: Pooja Nair
- New Law Mandates That Employees Can No Longer Be Required to Use Vacation Before Receiving Paid Family Leave Benefits | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Employer Alert: New Whistleblower Poster Required | By: Joanne Warriner
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014