gno.law

Laskowitz v. Shellenberger

District Court, S.D. California · 12258-T · 1952-09-27 · Published

LASKOWITZ Et Al. v. SHELLENBERGER Et Al.

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Tolin (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:59Z · confidence high

The court considered a motion by Craft Furniture Mfg. Co. to withdraw its only attorneys of record. The court denied the motion, holding that a corporation cannot appear in propria persona and that withdrawal would leave the defendant without representation.

What the court decidedThe model
Motion to withdraw attorneys denied
“The purported withdrawal of attorneys is disallowed.”
agree with court
The decision is legally sound. A corporation is a legal entity that cannot practice law or appear in court in its own name (in propria persona); it must act through licensed counsel. Allowing the sole attorneys of record to withdraw without a substitution would leave the corporate defendant without legal representation, which is procedurally improper and potentially prejudicial to the integrity of the proceeding. The court correctly identified that substitution, not withdrawal, is the proper mechanism for changing counsel.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the legal incapacity of a corporation to represent itself. It correctly cites the fundamental principle that corporations must act through licensed counsel and distinguishes between withdrawal and substitution of counsel. The reasoning is sufficient to support the denial of the motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Tolin

TOLIN, District Judge.

The Court is asked to permit .withdrawal óf R. Wéltón Whann,' Ésq., John C. Allen, Esq., and.Robert M. McManigal, Esq. as attorneys .for Craft Furniture Mfg. Co., a corporation. They are the only attorneys of record for said defendant. The case is at issue, . .

Said defendant consents to the withdrawal by a document bearing its seal .filed with the Court. .The..Court does not consent: to the withdrawal of attorneys. Approval would leave a corporate defendant without representation. _ Even if a defendant assumes to represent himself, he must either enter his first appearance in the case m propria persona or, be substituted for whoever appeared as his attorney. Defendant .appropriately does not. offer to do this .because, being a corporation, it is without capacity to either represent others or itself.

For' authorities discussing the principles involved, see cases cited to support the following quotation from Cal.Jur. Ten Year.Supplement, 1949, Revision, Vol.

*398 9, Sec. 15, p. 448, where the applicable rules are stated as follows:

“Since a corporation cannot practice law, and can only act through the ■agency of natural persons, it follows that it can appear in court on its own ■behalf only through a licensed attorney. It cannot appear by an officer of the corporation who is not an attorney, and may not even file a complaint except by an attorney, whose authority to appear is presumed; in other words, a corporation cannot appear in propria persona.

A judgment rendered in such a proceeding is void.”

In any event a withdrawal of attorneys is not the proper course. A substitution of attorneys approved by the Court is the method of changing representation. The purported withdrawal of attorneys is disallowed.

Cited by