The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5456 March 1, 1979 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: Representation of parties by a person not admitted to the State Bar of Michigan ATTORNEYS: Representation of persons at Public Service Commission hearings by a person not admitted to the State Bar of Michigan ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE: Representation of persons at Public Service Commission hearings by a person not admitted to the State Bar of Michigan It is not the function or duty of the Public Service Commission to define, prohibit or punish the unauthorized practice of law. Not every participation in a representative capacity before an administrative agency constitutes the practice of law. Persons engaged in the practice of law by virtue of their appearance in a representative capacity before an administrative agency, if such appearance constitutes the practice of law, are subject to penalty as provided in RJA Sec. 916. Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 You have asked my opinion on the following questions: 1. Does the representation of a corporation before the Michigan Public Service Commission by an individual who is not admitted to the State Bar of Michigan constitute unlawful practice of law? 2. Does 1968 PA 140, MCLA 460.8; MSA 22.13(8), which authorizes industry trade associations to participate in hearings pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act by 'any elected or designated representative,' validly permit a nonlawyer to act as such representative? Both questions raise the issue of whether the public service commission may refuse to permit a person to appear before it in a representative capacity on the ground that the person is not a lawyer. If the public service commission has no such power, it is unnecessary for the commission to concern itself with what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. RJA Sec. 901; MCLA 600.901; MSA 27A.901 provides, in part, that: 'No person is authorized to practice law in this state unless he complies with the requirements of the supreme court with regards thereto.' RJA Sec. 916, MCLA 600.916; MSA 27A.916 provides, in pertinent part, that: 'It is unlawful for any person to practice law unless the person so doing is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of contempt of the supreme court and of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred, and upon conviction is punishable as provided by law. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Ingham County Bar Association v Walter Neller Co, 342 Mich 214; 69 NW2d 713 (1955), stated that: 'Since it is left to the courts of this State as well as those of most other States, to define the 'practice of law' we must consider the adjudicated authorities. ' State Bar of Michigan v Cramer, 56 Mich App 176; 223 NW2d 713 (1974) is an example of the operation of Section 916 of 1961 PA 236, supra. In Cramer, the State Bar of Michigan brought action in the Circuit Court against Virginia Cramer asserting that she had violated a permanent injunction, granted earlier by the Wayne County Circuit Judge, restraining her from the unauthorized practice of law. The Circuit Court found Ms. Cramer in contempt for violating the permanent injunction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction under Section 916 of 1961 PA 236, supra. The Michigan Supreme Court later affirmed the permanent injunction at 399 Mich 116; 249 NW2d 1 (1976). The Supreme Court in Cramer also commented on the difficulty and complexity of determining what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law: 'While all those not licensed to practice law are prohibited from doing so, the Legislature has not seen fit to define what constitutes the 'practice of law', and, accordingly, '[t]he formidable task of constructing a definition of the practice of law has largely been left to the judiciary'. Comment, Lay Divorce Firms and the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 6 J L Reform 423, 426 (1973). 'We are still of the mind that any attempt to formulate a lasting, allencompassing definition of 'practice of law' is doomed to failure 'for the reason that under our system of jurisprudence such practice must necessarily change with the everchanging business and social order'. Grand Rapids Bar Association v Denkema, 290 Mich 56, 64; 287 NW 377 (1939). 'No essential definition of the practice of law has been articulated and the descriptive definitions which have been agreed upon from time to time have only permitted disposition of specific questions. ' State Bar of Michigan v Cramer, 399 Mich 116, 132-133 (1976). OAG 1937-1938, p 404 (January 19, 1938) considered whether a lay person may appear in a representative capacity before the Workman's Compensation Commission of the Department of Labor and Industry and concluded that such appearance did constitute the practice of law. In so concluding, the Attorney General cited a decision of the Dickinson Circuit Court in Michigan State Bar Association v McGregor and decisions from other states. The Attorney General further concluded that it was immaterial whether a fee was charged. In addition, a letter opinion signed by Deputy Attorney General Leon S. Cohan on May 8, 1970 contained the following statement: '. . . the Department of Social Services may not, by its rules, authorize a person who is not an attorney to represent another in an administrative hearing before the said department or any agency thereof.' It is my opinion, however, that RJA Sec. 916, supra, provides for the prohibition and punishment for unauthorized practice of law. Under that section, a circuit court must determine in the first instance whether unauthorized legal practice has occurred, and if so, the appropriate remedy. Not every participation in a representative capacity before an administrative agency constitutes the practice of law. Persons engaged in the practice of law by virtue of their appearance in a representative capacity before an administrative agency, if such appearance constitutes the practice of law, are subject to such penalties. It is not the function or duty of the public service commission to define, prohibit or punish the unauthorized practice of law; however, instances of suspected unlawful practice of law by lay persons may be brought to the attention of the State Bar of Michigan by the public service commission. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General