ILNews

LLCs must have attorneys in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Owners of limited liability companies must be represented by an attorney to appeal a decision in federal court, ruled the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today. Because a company and its president appealed a District Court's decision without an attorney, the appellate court dismissed the appeal.

In United States of America v. Derrik Hagerman and Wabash Environmental Technologies, LLC, No. 08-2670, Wabash and its president, Derrik Hagerman, appealed the District Court's dismissal of the government's petition for relief after Wabash agreed to start paying restitution and furnish specific financial information. The defendants were convicted of criminal violations of the Clean Water Act and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution and placed on five years of probation.

The 7th Circuit dismissed Hagerman's appeal because he wasn't a party to the probation-violation proceeding and no order naming him was entered, wrote Judge Richard Posner. Wabash's appeal also must be dismissed because they are proceeding pro se with the appeal, which can't be done in a federal court.

Hagerman claimed, as president and "member" of Wabash, he can represent the company in proceedings. But corporations aren't permitted to litigate in federal court unless represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice in that court, and the same applies to LLCs, wrote the judge. Even though the appellate court hadn't ruled on whether an LLC can litigate only if represented by a lawyer, the same rule applies.

The right to conduct business confers privileges, and one of those is the obligation to hire an attorney if you want to sue or defend on behalf of the company, Judge Posner wrote.

"Pro se litigation is a burden on the judiciary ... and the burden is not to be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business in entity form. He must take the burdens with the benefits," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT