|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Georgia Law Monitor CORPORATIONS Original text copied from Georgia Supreme Court web-site Answering a question of first impression, the Georgia Supreme Court has prohibited laymen who are not licensed to practice law in Georgia from representing in court the corporations in which they serve as corporate officers. Andrew Jackson Eckles d/b/a Atlanta Technology Group v. Atlanta Technology Group, Inc., No. S96A1507 (March 3, 1997). The ruling comes in an appeal from Fulton Superior Court in which the trial court denied the request for injunctive relief brought by Andrew Jackson Eckles, who does business as The Atlanta Technology Group, to prohibit the Atlanta Technology Group, Inc. from using that name for trade or business purposes. The trial court concluded that Atlanta Technology Group, Inc. did not infringe on Eckles' trade name. Justice George H. Carley, writing for the court, found that Eckles is entitled to injunctive relief because undisputed evidence in the record establishes that Atlanta Technology Group Inc.'s use of the name Atlanta Technology Group has caused confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the public. In this litigation, Atlanta Technology Group Inc. was represented by one of its corporate officers who is not a licensed attorney. "As the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions have found, we conclude that allowing laymen to serve as unlicensed attorneys for corporations would be contrary to the public interest and, in the exercise of our inherent power over the practice of law in this state, we hereby prohibit such representation," the Supreme Court held. It limited the applicability of its holding to civil actions instituted on and after the date the decision appears in the advance sheets. Justice Leah J. Sears concurred specially, arguing that she generally agrees with the rule laid down by the majority but believes "there must be some flexibility permitted in the application of this rule." As a result, she "would not completely foreclose all possibility that an exception to this rule could be made as a trial court, acting in its discretion, deems appropriate." Notice: Disclaimer of Attorney Client Relationship by mere use of this website. The mere reading or accessing this website does not create an attorney client relationship. Emailing the firm or using the legal forms posted does not constitute and create an attorney client relationship. If you would like to inquire about possible legal representation, please be aware that we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest for you or our present clients. If you wish to initiate an attorney client relationship, we need the opportunity to conduct a conflict search, review your case and materials and, if appropriate in your situation, complete an engagement letter. Additionally, any information presented on this site is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Wood & Meredith, LLP. These articles posted are not intended to provide specific legal or tax advice, but are intended only to generally familiarize the reader with the subject matter. Matters of specific legal or tax nature should be discussed with a competent attorney or tax professional specializing in that particular field or practice. All use of this website is subject to the Contract of Terms.
Copyright © 2003 Wood and Meredith, LLP. All Rights Reserved. |
|||||||||||||
