Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As much text as might exist around the subject, it looks like the "blanket prohibitions" aren't working and everyone knows it. There's a small loophole in the rule you describe--what happens if a non-attorney learns of an attorney's misconduct? Nothing, that's what!

It's not ridiculous for me to want to represent my company without having taken the bar exam--you're using a legal fiction to argue that even though I pay my company's taxes, I should not be allowed to represent its interests in court if I so choose. But even if I didn't pay my company's taxes, I would still want that option because the fictitious entity you describe is a creation of my capital and my labor and in every other respect its Board of Directors has the ability to guide its direction.



I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.

Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners are not the corporation. The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.

Some jurisdictions may have rules deviating from this to allow corporate pro se representation by 100% shareholders in small claims matters, but they would be the exception.


The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.

I don't follow the logic here. If it's fictitious and incompetent to stand trial, then why it can be brought to trial at all?


> Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.

Failure to report a crime is a crime. For everybody.


Failure to report a crime is a crime. For everybody.

That's not true. In the US the offence still exists, but:

This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.[1]

In most other English speaking jurisdictions the crime itself has been abolished.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony


Irrelevant. Violation of a legal obligation is not the same thing as commission of a crime. An act may simultaneously be a violation of legal ethics and a crime, but usually not. Ethics violations are punishable by, amongst other things, civil sanctions, fines and disbarment, but not criminal penalties.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: