An LLC Must be Represented by an Attorney, Except Maybe Not In Louisiana

 An LLC Must be Represented by an Attorney, Except Maybe Not In Louisiana

It is the accepted rule that while a natural person has the right to represent themselves in court, no similar right extends to business organizations, and but for the most narrow of exceptions (e.g., small claims court in Colorado), an LLC must be represented by an attorney.  These rules exist to protect against the unauthorized practice of law by non-attorney managers and owners who might seek to represent their organizations.  The cases as to this rule are collected in Ribstein and Keatinge on Limited Liability Companies section 13:8 (Dec. 2025).

A recent decision from Louisiana has in at least that jurisdiction brought this rule into question. Ela Group, Inc. v. Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea, LLC, 420 So.3d 680 (La. Oct. 14, 2025).

The facts are somewhat sparse, but it would seem that a construction company, through its nonlawyer president, filed a complaint against the company’s former law firm.  Later the company retained counsel and filed an amended complaint.  The firm, which apparently had objected to the initial complaint, renewed its objection as to a complaint filed by a non-attorney.  Both the trial court and the court of appeals upheld the dismissal of the complaint, determinations reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

After recounting its authority to regulate the legal profession, the Court first observed:

La. R.S. 37:212(B), defining the practice of law, provides that “[n]othing in this Section prohibits any person from attending to and caring for his own business, claims, or demands.” Jurisprudence in our appellate courts has limited the scope of that exception only to natural persons. Considering this Court’s plenary authority to define and regulate the practice of law, and in light of the fiduciary obligation of officers to protect the rights of their corporate entities, we find it appropriate to allow the officers of juridical persons to file time sensitive actions on their behalf.  

To the extent that prior jurisprudence held that the original filing  is vacated solely because it was filed by a corporate officer for a juridical person, those cases are abrogated.  420 So.3d at 681 (footnote omitted). 

From there is was directed that a “corporate entity” should promptly retain counsel to represent it before taking further action in the case. 420 So.3d at 682.

As detailed in footnote 1 to the opinion, decisions abrogated include:

See, e.g., Wholesale Auto Grp., Inc., v. La. Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 17-613 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 247 So. 3d 215, writ denied, 18-1017 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So. 3d 795 (holding a petition filed by a person not licensed to practice law in Louisiana was without legal effect); Bankston v. Tasch, LLC, 2009-1573 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/2/10), 40 So. 3d 495 (finding answer filed by sole member of legal entity was unauthorized practice of law and had no legal effect). 420 So.3d 680, n. 1.

And then of perhaps the greatest import for the LLC bar, the Court in its second footnote wrote:

A single-member LLC that is a disregarded entity for federal and state tax purposes may be represented by its sole member in the same manner as a natural person under federal regulations. 26 CFR 301.7701-3. Rev. Proc. 2002-69, clarifies that this treatment extends to an LLC managed by a spouse held as community property. We find that these disregarded entities should be treated the same as the underlying natural person for all purposes of La. R.S. 37:212(B).  420 So.3d 680, n. 2.

Tellingly, this sanction of a non-attorney representing a disregarded entity (a tax treatment) in state court is not restricted to filing an initial pleading followed by retaining counsel, but rather would appear to sanction the non-attorney member representing the entity throughout the proceeding. Whether this rule will be extended beyond the SMLLC / Rev. Proc. 2002-79 (spouses in a community property jurisdiction) deemed SMLLC circumstances to MMLLCs remains to be seen.