Ezel / AG Opinions / TX
TX JM-56 August 10, 1983

Could a nonlawyer authorized agent represent a landlord or tenant in a justice-court eviction case under former Rule 747a?

Short answer: No, according to JM-56. It construed 'authorized agents' to mean attorney agents because allowing a nonlawyer to manage the case for another party conflicted with the State Bar Act. A party could still represent himself or herself.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1983
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority in Texas courts but are not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The opinion dates from 1983 and analyzes former civil rules and a former State Bar Act; verify current justice-court rules and current law before relying on it.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Texas AG Opinion JM-56: Nonlawyer Agents in Justice-Court Eviction Cases

Plain-English summary

JM-56 concluded that former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 747a was invalid to the extent it purported to authorize nonlawyers to practice law by representing other parties in justice-court forcible-entry-and-detainer cases.

"To the extent that rule 747a purports to authorize the practice of law by unlicensed persons, we believe that it would be held unconstitutional."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

The opinion construed the rule's phrase "authorized agents" to mean attorney agents, harmonizing the court rule with the State Bar Act's prohibition on unlicensed people managing court proceedings for clients.

"In our opinion, therefore, 'authorized agents' as used in Rule 747a should be construed to mean 'attorney agents.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Rule 747a still allowed an individual party to represent himself or herself.

"We emphasize, however, that Rule 747a permits a party to represent himself in a forcible entry and detainer action."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What did former Rule 747a say?

It allowed parties in nonpayment-of-rent and holdover eviction cases to represent themselves or be represented by authorized agents in justice court.

"In forcible entry and detainer cases for non-payment of rent or holding over beyond the rental term, the parties may represent themselves or be represented by their authorized agents in justice court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Why did JM-56 see a conflict with the State Bar Act?

The Act treated management of actions and proceedings for clients before judges as practicing law, while the rule appeared to allow an unlicensed agent to perform that role.

"The State Bar Act, article 320a-1, V.T.C.S., prohibits persons who are not members of the State Bar of Texas from practicing law."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

"[T]he management of the actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges in courts."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Could a nonlawyer file the eviction complaint?

JM-56 cited an earlier opinion distinguishing filing a complaint from representing the owner at the hearing: an apartment manager could file but could not conduct the owner's case.

"[A]partment manager may file complaint in FED action but may not represent owner at hearing."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

What happened when a Supreme Court rule conflicted with a statute?

The rule had to yield.

"Where a rule of the Supreme Court conflicts with a statute, the rule must yield."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Did the Supreme Court have civil rulemaking power?

Yes, but the constitution limited that power to procedural rules not inconsistent with Texas law.

"The Supreme Court shall have power to make and establish rules of procedure not inconsistent with the laws of the State for the government of said court and the other courts of this State to expedite the dispatch of business therein."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Could a party appear without a lawyer on his or her own behalf?

Yes. JM-56 expressly preserved self-representation.

"Rule 747a permits a party to represent himself in a forcible entry and detainer action."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The Bexar County criminal district attorney asked about a Supreme Court rule that, in essence, appeared to authorize nonlawyers to practice in justice court.

"You have requested our opinion regarding the constitutionality of a rule promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court, which, in essence, authorizes the practice of law in a justice court by persons not licensed to practice."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

A forcible-entry-and-detainer suit was a landlord-tenant action filed in justice court.

"A forcible entry and detainer suit is a landlord tenant action filed in the justice court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Holding

"To the extent that Rule 747a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the practice of law by non-attorneys, it is invalid. Accordingly, 'authorized agents' as used in that rule should be construed to mean 'attorney agents.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0056.pdf

Citations and references

Constitutional, statutory, and rule provisions discussed by JM-56:

Case cited by JM-56:

  • "Few v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, 463 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. 1971)" Official PDF

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

August 10, 1983

Honorable Sam D. Hillsap, Jr.
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County Courthouse
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Opinion No. JM-56

Re: Constitutionality of Rule 747a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Dear Mr. Hillsap:

You have requested our opinion regarding the constitutionality of a rule promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court, which, in essence, authorizes the practice of law in a justice court by persons not licensed to practice. The court has promulgated Rule 747a, which provides in full as follows:

In forcible entry and detainer cases for non-payment of rent or holding over beyond the rental term, the parties may represent themselves or be represented by their authorized agents in justice court.

This rule was adopted in 1982.

Article V, section 25 of the Texas Constitution provides that:

The Supreme Court shall have power to make and establish rules of procedure not inconsistent with the laws of the State for the government of said court and the other courts of this State to expedite the dispatch of business therein.

The statutory corollary of section 25 is found in article 1731a, V.T.C.S., which gives the Texas Supreme Court "full rulemaking power in the practice and procedure in civil actions."

The State Bar Act, article 320a-1, V.T.C.S., prohibits persons who are not members of the State Bar of Texas from practicing law, which is defined in part as:

[T]he management of the actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges in courts.

Article 320a-1, section 19, V.T.C.S.

A forcible entry and detainer suit is a landlord tenant action filed in the justice court. Under the State Bar Act, the only persons authorized as "agents" for parties in such suits are licensed attorneys. See Tex. Rules of Civil Proc. 730-755; arts. 3973-3994, V.T.C.S. To the extent that rule 747a purports to authorize the practice of law by unlicensed persons, we believe that it would be held unconstitutional. Where a rule of the Supreme Court conflicts with a statute, the rule must yield. Few v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, 463 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. 1971) (rule held invalid in workers compensation action). In our opinion, therefore, "authorized agents" as used in Rule 747a should be construed to mean "attorney agents." See Attorney General Opinions MW-392, MW-312 (1981) (corporations to be represented by attorney in appeal to county court at law in small claims court); MW-235 (1980) (apartment manager may file complaint in FED action but may not represent owner at hearing); note, 8 Houston Law Review 302, 317 (1970); but see Attorney General Opinions H-974 (1977) (non-attorney may represent party at state administrative hearing); H-538 (1975) (non-attorney may represent corporation in small claims court). We emphasize, however, that Rule 747a permits a party to represent himself in a forcible entry and detainer action.

SUMMARY

To the extent that Rule 747a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the practice of law by non-attorneys, it is invalid. Accordingly, "authorized agents" as used in that rule should be construed to mean "attorney agents."

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by David Brooks
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1983 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.