RICHDEL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SUNSPOOL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A corporate officer who is not a licensed attorney cannot represent the corporation in court.
The president of the appellee corporation, who is not a lawyer, sought to represent his corporation due to financial hardship from legal fees. The cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a request by Harry T. Whitehouse, the president of appellee, Sunspool Corporation, to represent his corporation, which is the appellee in this patent case. Mr. White-house apparently is not a lawyer. He seeks to represent his corporation because “[t]he continuing accrual of professional fees ... has imposed a substantial financial hardship upon the Appellee.”
Rule 7(a) of the Rules of this court provides that “[ejxcept for an individual appearing pro se, each party and amicus curiae must appear through an attorney who is authorized to practice before this court.” Nothing in our Rules suggests that an exception is to be made because of the expense a corporation will incur by appearing through an attorney.
Both of our predecessor courts have held that only a lawyer, and not a corporate officer or stockholder, may appear for the corporation in litigation before the court. Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 458 F. 2d 1373, 1375 (Ct.Cl.1972); Whited Co. v. United States, No. 464-81C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20, 1981) (order requiring plaintiff corporation to be represented by counsel); Contemporary Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 503-80C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20,1981) (order granting in part motion for summary judgment); Roger & Gallet v. Janmarie, 245 F. 2d 505, 508 (CCPA 1957). This is the general rule. See Southwest Express Co., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 670 F. 2d 53 (5 Cir. 1982).
The request of Harry T. Whitehouse to appear in this case for the appellee, Sun-spool Corporation, is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1993)
-
Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- Roger & Gallet v. Janmarie, Inc., 245 F.2d 505 (C.C.P.A. 1957)
- Sw. Express Co., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 670 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Algonac Mfg. Co. (a close Mich. Corporation) & John A. Maxwell v. The United States, 458 F.2d 1373 (Ct. Cl. 1972)