We lawyers are a persnickety bunch. We insist upon things, sometimes even interrupting people making money. As this is a non-political blog, I’ll eschew comment on political figures. I’ve made plenty of those elsewhere.

But I’m surprised that Judge Cohen appears to have caught the unauthorized and unadmitted bug from Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel.

To explain the headline, our State’s Bar Association gets a wee bit upset at those providing legal advice who are not admitted to the Bar. When it comes to holding oneself out as a lawyer when one is not so admitted, we get positively testy. But when such as they start appearing in Court, we are exceedingly vexed. We call it Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UAPL”).

So I very politely ask Judge Cohen to explain the following, from Legal Recovery Law Offices Inc., Docket No. 9057-16, filed 5/1/17.

“This case was called from the calendar for the Trial Session of the Court at San Diego, California on April 17, 2017. A ‘friend of the owner’, Travis Reed, on behalf of petitioner, and counsel for respondent appeared and the parties were heard. Respondent filed with the Court a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. This case was recalled on April 18, 2017. Petitioner appeared by Mark Walsh, counsel for respondent appeared, and the parties were heard. Petitioner was deemed in default by reason of its failure to comply with multiple Rules and Orders of the Court.” Order, at p. 1.

OK, I know that Ch J Iron Fist has admitted CPAs to practice before Tax Court to the extent of making motions and filing papers, without such dreary details as being admitted to practice law anywhere or passing the Tax Court Admissions Examination and getting two sponsors. I have commented thereon extensively.

But even Ch J Iron Fist stopped short of allowing them to appear and argue in Court.

Now we all know Rule 24(b) provides, in pertinent part (as my high-priced colleagues say) “A corporation or an unincorporated association may be represented by an authorized officer of the corporation or by an authorized member of the association.” Maybe Mr. Walsh is an officer of Legal Recovery Law Offices Inc.

In any case, a docket search on Tax Court’s website shows Legal Recovery Law Offices Inc. is pro se. Perhaps there are no lawyers in that organization. In any event, “a friend of the owner” certainly stretches matters. Mr Reed cannot claim to be a next friend, as that status is reserved for individual infants and incompetents per Rule 60(d).

So I am left with the conjecture that Mr Walsh is an officer of Legal Recovery Law Offices Inc.

But clarification is in order. And perhaps the CA authorities might take note of this perplexing matter.