Davis Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dir. , 2017 Ark. App. 581 ( 2017 )

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 581
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No.E-17-248
DAVIS FLOOR COVERING, INC. Opinion Delivered: November 1, 2017
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. BOARD OF REVIEW
[NO. 2017-BR-00735]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND
ROBERT HOYL
APPELLEES APPEAL DISMISSED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Davis Floor Covering, Inc. (“Davis Floor, Inc.”), appeals from the
Arkansas Board of Review’s June 15, 2017 decision, affirming the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal
and finding that the claimant, Robert Hoyl, was entitled to benefits because he was
discharged from employment for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work.
We dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction.
On June 26, 2017, Davis Floor, Inc., filed its petition for appeal with this court. The
appellant was not represented by an attorney, and the owner of the corporation, John Davis,
signed the petition for appeal with this court. It is well-settled law that corporations must
be represented by licensed attorneys. Smithco Invs. of W. Memphis, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan &
Co., 370 Ark. 477, 261 S.W.3d 454 (2007). Furthermore, our supreme court has held that
where a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the interests of
others by submitting himself or herself to jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 581
filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity. Id. Here, Davis is not an attorney and may not
represent the corporation, Davis Floor, Inc., in this case. Id. Our case law makes it clear
that invoking the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law. Bank of Fayetteville
NA v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 96; Stephens Prod. Co. v. Bennett, 2015 Ark. App. 617. Because
Davis was practicing law when he signed the petition, the petition is null and void. Id. As
a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
GRUBER, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.
No briefs filed.
2