Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter↑

Search
Log in
Forgot password

Non-attorney Representation

Tuesday, April 28, 2026 9:17 AM | Anonymous

Non-Attorney Spokespeople Giving Legal Advice | Dolman Law

How should an arbitrator address a situation where one party is represented by a non-attorney and the opposing party raises an objection based on the unauthorized practice of law?

What are your thoughts?

Comments

  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:07 AM | Steven Skulnik
    The objection is meritless.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:01 AM | Bruce Rudman
      California law does preclude a corporation for appearing pro per in courts except small claims court. When Rule R-27 says, "unless the choice is prohibited by applicable law," one clear interpretation is this cannot apply in California. I certainly would appreciate guidance on how others deal with this in California.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:09 AM | Thomas P. Valenti
    Under AAA guidance, Commercial Rule R-27 permits a party to participate without representation, by counsel, or by “any other representative of the party’s choosing,” unless that choice is prohibited by applicable law. The same guidance notes that when a party retains or changes a representative, notice should be provided at least seven calendar days before the hearing where the representative first appears. The guiding balance is party autonomy, fairness, and legal compliance: the party’s chosen representative should be respected unless a concrete applicable law or rule bars that representation. Practically, the arbitrator should:
    1. Ask the objecting party to identify the specific law or rule that allegedly prohibits the non-attorney’s participation. 
    2. Give the represented party an opportunity to respond
    3. Check the governing arbitration rules, arbitration agreement, forum policy, and applicable state law. 
    4. Avoid giving legal advice or making broad UPL pronouncements beyond what is needed to conduct the arbitration. 
    5. If uncertain, invite short submissions or consult the administering institution procedurally. (In an AAA case, communications about process should generally run through AAA case administration.)
    6. Make a clear ruling on the record
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:16 AM | Nancy Greenwald
      Agreed. The AAA rules are clear, but state laws spometimes prohibit self-representation. Unfortunately, Connecticut is one of the states that appears to treat nonattorney self-representation (even if the representative is the owner of a single member LLC) as the unauthorized practice of law. In my opinion, this creates an unnecessary barrier to and added expense for arbitration.
      Link  •  Reply
      • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:48 AM | Henry F Marquard
        How do you handle the situation where a corporation cannot be represented in court by a non-attorney (Iowa and Illinois)? The arbitration rules would allow non-attorney representation but that might run afoul of unauthorized practice of law rules. If an adverse party objects citing UPL rules, what should the arbitrator do?
        Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:53 AM | Eric D. Kuritzky, Architect, CBO, Arbitrator
    First, I agree with all the current responses. What hasn't been made clear is if this "representative" shows up, unannounced, at the hearing, rather than prior notification. If so, then I would call my AAA rep to clarify. I would also ask the objecting party for a specific, legal or contractual, reasons (including AAA rules). If, in this situation, AAA has no objection. I would make it clear to the party with the non-attorney representative that said representative cannot make legal statements. I would consider, and make clear to the party, that the "representation" will be considered as an associate to the Party, and their comments considered during deliberations the same as if by the Party. Any future objections by said Party to my determinations because of this non-legal "representative" will not be considered.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:54 AM | George Lobman
    This is Arbitration where the parties have a lot to say. An Attorney is not an essential if the party chooses not to have one. Being opposed by an Attorney while scary is not something mandated by our rules. Especially when we do a hearing without the opposing party in attendance.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:02 AM | Gordon A. Coffee
    Virginia appears to be one of the states that prohibit non-attorneys from representing parties in arbitration. Ethical opinions further state that the state's UPL rules prevail over AAA rules. If Virginia law governs an arbitration, then an arbitrator must grant a motion to disqualify a non-attorney representative.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:07 AM | Robert L. Arrington
    First, identify the "forum state." This is usually the state where the claim would be brought in court if there were no agreement to arbitrate. The choice of law provision in the parties' agreement may also be relevant, but I think the forum state's rules would control. Then the Arbitrator should rule accordingly. I think it is always wise to consult the AAA case administrator prior to ruling.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:14 AM | Stanley Santire
    I have experienced starting a mediation with a law firm's paralegal or a firm's non attorney assistant showing up to represent the client. I refuse to proceed. I believe this is a natural ethical concern whether in mediation or arbitration (I have not had this happen in arbitration.) In Texas, per the Texas Center for Legal Ethics, and I quote, "Courts generally have prohibited the unauthorized practice of law because of a perceived need to protect individuals and the public from the mistakes of the untrained and the schemes of the unscrupulous, who are not subject to the judicially imposed disciplinary standards of competence, responsibility and accountability." In Texas some legal exceptions exist such as representation before some state agencies. Regardless of the AAA rules in such matters, I believe in arbitration and mediation involving legal issues, a party is ill served accompanied by someone not trained and experienced in the law.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:34 AM | Sean P. Healy
    Great question. I've had this come up. I believe Commercial Rule Rule 27 and Consumer Rule 24(a) strike the right balance, allowing a party to choose his or her representative unless that choice is "prohibited by applicable law." Texas doesn't have a clear statute or case prohibiting a nonlawyer from representing a party in arbitration, but it does prohibit "Providing legal advice or rendering services requiring legal skill or knowledge." The evidence showed the nonlawyer had drafted pleadings, advocated for the client, appeared at a preliminary hearing, played a major role in strategizing, and provided other services typically performed by an attorney. I allowed him to continue to act as a consultant and witness, but prohibited him from questioning witnesses and arguing. The client also had an attorney, so this did not impair his representation.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:37 AM | Michael S. Jordan retired judge
    I believe the arbitrator lawyer is bound by his or her own state's ethical rules prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. If the state licensing the arbitrator precludes it, the arbitrator must preclude it. Further if the arbitrator's home state does not have such a rule, then the state of the forum precluding unauthorized practice of law would preclude it. Basically, if any jurisdiction touching the case or arbitrator bars a non lawyer's participation, the AAA rules are overridden for the many reasons given by others above.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:40 AM | Anonymous
    I think that the arbitrator should simple ask the parties if the are comfortable with their representatives and if the answer is yes. Then let the arbitration process begin. I don’t believe that there is any rule under the AAA that prohibits a non-attorney from representation in an arbitration
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:46 AM | Raoul East Drapeau
    As Mr. Valenti has pointed out, the AAA Rules allow representation by counsel or anyone else (including self) unless that choice is prohibited by applicable law. If the state law, for example, requires that a representative be authorized to practice law in that state, then the party objecting to a non-attorney would have a good case. But I wonder what would happen (aside from my strong warning not to do so) if the other party wanted to proceed pro-se.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:03 PM | Fred Jacobs
      The issue frequently arises when the entity is a corporation or LLC, and an individual non-attorney wants to represent them, and state law prohibits that in a proceeding, which is defined to include arbitrations as well as court proceedings. Is it the arbitrator’s job to police this issue, or simply to alert the non-attorney party to the UPL issue, and then proceed with the arbitration with or without an attorney representing the corporate entity?
      Link  •  Reply
      • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:59 PM | Joe Manuel
        I expect the situation wherein a non lawyer attempts to represent their LLC or other artificial legal entity will arise more frequently in view of the trend toward online arbitration and consumer arbitration. In TN, a non-lawyer may not represent an artificial entity such as an LLC (even if it is a single member LLC and the non lawyer is the single member (100% owner of the LLC)). Thus, at the courthouse in TN the non-lawyer,single member of the LLC could not represent the LLC. There is a criminal statute in TN that prohibits non-lawyers from the "practice of law". TCA § 23-3-103. Since a lawyer is required to represent an artificial entity, a non-lawyer purporting to represent the entity would be prohibited and a violation of the statute. Accordingly, it seems to me that the Arbitrator should refuse to allow the non-lawyer from representing the artificial entity if TN is the forum state. This result is probably contrary to the egalitarian approach of our society, but it seems the correct ruling. I suspect many single member owners of an LLC will be shocked and dismayed that they cannot , in their view, represent themselves.
        Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:28 PM | Jed Marcus
    The parties are often represented by non-lawyers in labor arbitrations. I believe that the state rules on UPL are preempted in the labor context. In other arbitrations, I wonder whether I, as the arbitrator, have the authority to enforce the RPCs in an arbitration case. I believe that may be something for the court to decide.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:33 PM | Les Werlin
    For California arbitrations, review Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Ct., (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 119, 133–34.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:03 PM | Kathy Smalley
      In a state where the representation is prohibited by law, what happens if the opposing party doesn't object? Should the arbitrator raise it sua sponte?
      Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:23 PM | David J. Hoffman
    Even without reference to Florida’s law regarding the practice of law,
    enforcement of the arbitration provision according to its terms bars the
    representation of the Claimant by a non-attorney. The arbitration provision only
    provides for pro se participation or to alternatively “be represented by counsel”.
    Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “[m]eaning the
    expression of one term implies the exclusion of other terms not mentioned,” City of
    Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80, 84 fn 6 (Fla. 2000), providing these two
    alternatives without a third excludes the possibility of representation by non
    lawyers. The law of North Dakota, the reflecting the choice of substantive law,
    accepts that this “rule of construction … [and is] applicable to the construction of
    contracts.” Park View Manor, Inc. v. Housing Authority et al., 300 NW 2d 218, 225
    (N.D. 1980). Despite the provisions of the AAA Rules allowing for non-attorney
    representation in some cases, the contract language prevails. Brady v. Williams
    Capital, 14 N.Y.3d 459 (N.Y. 2010)(“…the terms of the parties' Arbitration Agreement,
    rather than the AAA rules, controlled…”); see Bahoor v. Varonis Systems, Inc., 152 F.
    Supp. 3d 1091, 1100 (N.D. Ill. 2015)(“any default fee provisions in the New York
    Code and JAMS rules are overridden by the express Agreement that the parties
    signed”).
    Although the reference to the AAA Rules in the arbitration agreement
    effectively incorporates these rules into the parties’ agreement, Howsam v. Dean
    Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 US 79, 86 (2002)(execution of submission form
    referencing rules “effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties'
    2
    agreement”), the fact is that a contrary provision regarding Claimant’s
    representation is in the contract itself. Under widely accepted contract
    interpretation principles, the more specific must prevail. Here is my reasoning: “If there is a conflict
    between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific
    provision qualifies the general provision.” Matter of Estate of Gustafson, 287 NW 2d
    700, 704 (N.D. 1980); Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Kellman, 375 So. 2d 26, 30
    (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979)(“[t]here are numerous Florida cases holding that in a single
    contract the specific provision will govern over the general provision…”).
    Claimant’s representatives are concededly not admitted to practice, so are
    therefore not permitted under the arbitration clause whether under Florida or North
    Dakota law."
    "Florida has restrictive views concerning the permissibility of representing
    parties in arbitration. It is undisputed that Florida courts have expressly held that
    non-lawyers may not represent parties in securities arbitration. Fla. Bar v.
    Rapoport, 845 So. 2d 874, 876 (Fla. 2003). There is no reason that decision should
    be limited to securities arbitration.
    Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has promulgated Rule 1-3.11 of the Rules
    Regulating the Florida Bar which governs the representation, in Florida, by out-of
    state counsel. That rule only allows such representation where the representation:
    (1) for a client who resides or has an office in the lawyer’s home state; (2) appears to
    arise out of the lawyer’s home state practice; and (3) does not require pro hac vice
    admission. Here, were the Claimant’s representatives lawyers, their representation
    would fail on prong (1). Yet, there is no reason to believe that Florida would be more
    permissive regarding non-lawyer representatives than lawyer representatives. The
    fact that Florida law or rules provide no procedure for a non-lawyer to represent a
    party in arbitration – where they do for lawyers – is highly suggestive that such
    representation is not allowed. Therefore, I conclude that Florida would not allow
    this representation even if permitted by the AAA Rules."

    "
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:29 PM | David J. Hoffman
      The party seeking non-attorney representation also claimed that I did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. I concluded that I did, both under Florida law and that I could not set aside my obligations under New York state law.
      "Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court, pointing to the Florida Constitution, has
      held that it has the power “exclusively to make th[e] determination” as to whether a
      person has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Goldberg v. Merrill Lynch
      Credit Corp., 35 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. 2010). Yet, the Goldberg decision itself, arising
      in a context where plaintiffs were seeking bring claims arising out of the alleged
      unauthorized practice of law, distinguishes between two cases: cases of first
      impression before the Florida Supreme Court and cases that have been ruled upon.
      To bring a claim based on the authorized practice of law, the Florida Supreme Court
      held that “the pleading must state that this Court has ruled that the specified
      conduct at issue constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.” Id. at 907. In cases
      of first impression, the first instance court must either dismiss without prejudice or
      stay the case as the plaintiff avails himself of the advisory opinion provisions of
      Florida procedure for a determination on the issue of the unauthorized practice of
      law. Id. at 908.
      Thus, the Florida Supreme Court has established the principle that “if the
      actions complained of have been ruled on by this Court, then a plaintiff may be able
      to state a cause of action with proper pleading, even though the defendant accused
      of the unauthorized practice of law has not been subject to a Florida Bar
      proceeding”. Id.
      In light of Fla. Bar v. Rapoport, 845 So. 2d 874, 876 (Fla. 2003), the Florida
      Supreme Court has ruled that representation of parties in arbitration constitutes the
      practice of law. The factual findings regarding Rapoport’s conduct in that case have
      nothing specifically to do with securities arbitration:
      Rapoport admittedly has engaged in the traditional tasks of the
      lawyer—giving of legal advice, preparing and submitting claims,
      representing clients in proceedings, advertising his ability to represent
      clients—in securities arbitration proceedings in Florida.
      5
      Id. at 877.
      Thus, the Florida Supreme Court has provided sufficient guidance that
      allows the conclusion that Claimant’s proposed representatives would be
      engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. This is not a novel or expansive
      interpretation of Florida law, rather it has been black-letter Florida law for
      over two decades."
      "Furthermore, as a lawyer admitted to practice in the State of New York,
      Rule 5.5(b) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct require that “[a]
      lawyer shall not aid a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law”. If I were
      to allow this arbitration to proceed with non-lawyer representatives, I would
      be in violation of that Rule. I do not believe any rule of the State of Florida can
      suspend my ethical obligations to my home jurisdiction as an attorney."
      "The grounds under (1) are untouched by Florida policy concerns and,
      even if they were, the FAA overrides Florida law and even the Florida
      Constitution to the extent that it disfavors resolution of this question by
      arbitration. In Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. v. Clark, 581 US 246 (2017), the
      United States Supreme Court held that the FAA overrode the Kentucky
      Supreme Court’s interpretation of provisions of the Kentucky Constitution to
      the detriment of arbitration. The FAA requires the enforcement of the
      arbitration contract according to its terms and, as demonstrated above, those
      terms forbid the Claimant from being represented by non-lawyers."
      I would be happy to discuss this question with any of you.
      Link  •  Reply
      • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:31 PM | David J. Hoffman
        That was the reasoning of my opinion delivered a few months ago in a Florida arbitration.
        Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:01 PM | Anonymous
    The answer may depend on whether the arbitrator is a licensed attorney or a lay person. In Michigan, all attorney have a duty to report the unauthorized practice of law, regardless of the position they find themselves in. Further, in Michigan, nonlawyers cannot represent or appear on behalf of an entity except in workers comp hearings. As an arbitrator I would know it at the outset and not allow it. I just declined an arbitration where both parties were entities and wanted to arbitrate on behalf of their companies per a contract provision. As much as I would have liked the opportunity, I declined. Similarly, if an attorney is appearing before me in a Michigan venue, the attorney must be Michigan licensed or obtain pro hac vice.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:14 PM | Tricia Schafer
    This comes up from time to time when an entity tries to represent itself. As an arbitrator who is also a lawyer licensed in AZ, I raise the issue myself, with AAA staff, even before the preliminary hearing, as follows:

    "As you may be aware, Arizona law provides that business entity parties must be represented by counsel to appear in private arbitration proceedings in the State of Arizona. This is because the representation of a business entity in arbitration is considered the practice of law. This means that business entities cannot be represented by their officers, managers, partners, members, employees, or other owners.

    Further, the State Bar of Arizona takes the position that a lawyer arbitrator (such as myself) who presides over a private arbitration hearing where a nonattorney represents a business entity, aids and abets the unauthorized practice of law, which constitutes an ethical violation."

    If an entity appears through a nonlawyer representative at the preliminary hearing, I would need to terminate the preliminary hearing after providing this explanation.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:32 PM | Chip Galagaza
    I think it would depend if the arbitration arose under state law or federal law, such as the FAA, the NLRA, etc., and also the state under which the arbitration arose, if not under a federal statute. In reading prior comments, I see that there are states in addition to Texas where I practice that prohibit a business entity irrespective of the form of the business that also prohibit a company from being represented by a non-attorney. On the other hand, advocates who are not attorneys have long represented parties in labor arbitrations.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:48 PM | Mickey Busca
    In Connecticut, pursuant to Conn. Practice Book sec. 2-44A (b)(4), participating in arbitrations, labor negotiations and conciliations are not considered the practice of law.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:58 PM | Michael Saydah
    This issue has come before me several times. I am in San Diego, Cal. The issue usually arises with a parent wanting to represent their minor child in a personal injury matter or a med-mal matter. The defense usually sees the issue and makes a motion to dismiss. I have granted the motion because of the clear authority in California. Only an active member of the State Bar can practice law: "Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar.
    ( Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830.)"
    ( Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125.)
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 8:04 PM | JEROME ALLAN LANDAU
      I have been in that situation where a party chose to have a non-attorney represent them in an arbitration- I consulted with the Arizona Bar Association, which at that time, reported that this was "not" considered to be the "practice of law".
      Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, April 28, 2026 8:10 PM | Richard H. Kosinski
    Our Constitution allows for freedom of association. So long as a person does not claim to be an attorney, she should be able to act as a support person. A spouse, relative or a trusted friend could fill that role.
    Link  •  Reply
Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter

© ACR-GNY

Contact Us

Email us at questions@acrgny.org

ACR-GNY's mission and programming are generously sponsored by:

ADR Notable: Dispute Resolution Management Made Easy
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software