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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT