Life Science Church, Bible Camp & Christian Liberty Academy v. Shawano County

• Decision Date: 04 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-0694,98-0694
• Citation: 585 N.W.2d 625,221 Wis.2d 331
• Parties: LIFE SCIENCE CHURCH, BIBLE CAMP & CHRISTIAN LIBERTY ACADEMY, Mission of Jesus Christ Almighty God, by their trustees, Donald Minniecheske, Orlando P. Richards, Delores Lehman, Marcella Lehman, and JoAnn Redman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, d v. SHAWANO COUNTY and Village of Tigerton, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 625

585 N.W.2d 625

221 Wis.2d 331

LIFE SCIENCE CHURCH, BIBLE CAMP & CHRISTIAN LIBERTY ACADEMY, Mission of Jesus Christ Almighty God, by their trustees, Donald Minniecheske, Orlando P. Richards, Delores Lehman, Marcella Lehman, and JoAnn Redman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ^d v. SHAWANO COUNTY and Village of Tigerton, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 98-0694.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Motion April 2, 1998.

Opinion Released Aug. 4, 1998.

Opinion Filed Aug. 4, 1998.

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the response to the motion to dismiss of Orlando Richards, Delores Lehman, Marcella Lehman, JoAnn Redman and Donald Minniecheske, pro se.

On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the motion to dismiss of Pamela M. Schmidt of Whyte, Hirschbock, Dudek, S.C. of Milwaukee.

Before CANE, C.J., MYSE, P.J. and HOOVER, J.

PER CURIAM.

The Life Science Church, Bible Camp & Christian Liberty Academy, and the Mission of Jesus Christ Almighty God appeal a judgment that dismissed their quiet title lawsuit against Shawano County and the Village of Tigerton. The trustees for these appellant organizations, Orlando Richards, Delores Lehman, Marcella Lehman, Jo Ann Redman, and Donald Minniecheske, filed the notice of appeal without a lawyer licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. The trustees do not make clear whether these organizations are incorporated entities, unincorporated associations, or common law trusts; one or more may be incorporated ch. 187, STATS., religious entities. The County and Village moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that trustees may not represent the legal interests of their trust in the courts of this state without licensed legal counsel, in the same way that officers, directors, and shareholders may not represent the legal interests of a corporation without licensed legal counsel. The County and Village maintain that this legal disability renders the trustees' notice of appeal ineffective to initiate a valid appeal. We agree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that nonlawyers such as officers, directors, and shareholders may not represent corporations in Wisconsin courts. See Jadair, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 209 Wis.2d 187, 204, 562 N.W.2d 401, 407 (1997). The supreme court ruled that corporations may appear in Wisconsin courts only by means of a lawyer licensed to practice law in Wisconsin; nonlawyers may appear only on their own behalf. See id. Jadair applies a universal principle, which we conclude applies to trustees who seek to speak for another's interests in court. Trustees stand in a role similar to officers, directors, and shareholders of corporations. They are nonlawyers attempting to represent the legal interests of someone else--the legal interests of their trust and the trust beneficiaries. As the Jadair court recognized, nonlawyers who attempt to speak for the legal interests of others are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. By analogy to Jadair, we hold that trustees may appear in Wisconsin courts without licensed legal counsel only to represent their own legal interests in their individual capacities, not to represent the legal interests of their trusts or trust beneficiaries in their representative, fiduciary capacities as trustees.

We note that other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion and require licensed legal counsel to represent the legal interests of trustees acting in their representative, fiduciary capacities for common law express trusts. See, e.g., Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 347-48 (8th Cir.1994); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Stepard, 876 F.Supp. 214, 215 (D.Ariz.1994); Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 670 P.2d 1264, 1276 (Haw.1983); Lazy 'L' Family Preservation Trust v. First State Bank of Princeton, 167 Ill.App.3d 624, 118 Ill.Dec. 130, 521 N.E.2d 198, 200-01 (Ill.App.1988); Back Acres Pure Trust v. Fahnlander, 233 Neb. 28, 443 N.W.2d 604, 604-05 (Neb.1989); Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 885 P.2d 607, 608-09 (Nev.1994); Williams v. Global Constr. Co., Ltd., 26 Ohio App.3d 119, 498 N.E.2d 500, 502 (Ohio App.1985); Oregon v. Loe, 65 B.R. 16, 18 (D.Or.1986). Jadair applies the same basic principle at work in these cases. They all recognize that the trustees in those cases were attempting to speak in court not for their own legal interests, but for the legal interests of the trust or the trust beneficiaries. As a result, under Jadair and the above-cited cases, trustees for common law express trusts may not appear in Wisconsin courts for the interests of their trusts unless they appear through licensed legal counsel.

We reject the various arguments the trustees offer to justify their appeal. First, they claim that Jadair applies only to compensated legal representatives. They cite § 757.30(2), STATS. ¹ , which they claim limits the practice of law to compensated acts. This statute states that whoever "in or out of court, for compensation or pecuniary reward gives professional legal advice" shall be deemed to be practicing law. See § 757.30(2), STATS. That part of subsection (2) concerns persons who give legal advice. We must read it in context with the first part of the subsection which concerns persons who "appear" in court, classifying them apart from those who "give advice" "in or out of court." It defines the practice of law to include every person "who appears ... as ... representative ... for or on behalf of any other person ... in or before any court of record." (Emphasis added). Unlike the "advice" provision, the "appearance" provision does not mention compensation. As a result, even if compensation is a vital element of the practice of law when formed of "advice," it is not an element of the practice of law when formed of an "appearance" in court. We also note that Jadair did not define the practice of law in terms of compensation. In short, compensation is immaterial to the trustees' power to file this appeal.

Second, the trustees cite the religious and nonprofit status of their organizations as a distinction permitting them to speak for their organizations without licensed legal counsel. They claim that their organizations are bona fide religious societies within the meaning of ch. 187. The trustees do not make clear, however, whether their organizations are incorporated or unincorporated. Chapter 187 applies to incorporated religious organizations. It has little application to unincorporated religious associations. See §§ 187.01 and 187.40,...