Benninghoff

Benninghoff v. Superior Court

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 4th 61·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 108·2006 Daily Journal DAR 1218·38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 910
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2006G035923California4,871 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

Petitioner Charles Benninghoff, a former lawyer who resigned from the State Bar of California (State Bar) with disciplinary charges pending, seeks an extraordinary writ reversing an order whereby the court assumed jurisdiction over his practice. The court found Benninghoff had been illegally practicing law by representing parties before federal and state agencies as a self-styled “lay representative.” Benninghoff contends that laypeople may represent parties in state administrative hearings, and so this kind of representation must not constitute the practice of law. Because he was not practicing law, he argues, the court lacked any basis to assume jurisdiction over his lay practice.

Benninghoff’s conclusions do not follow from his premise. Representing parties in state administrative hearings constitutes the practice of law. As a “lay representative,” Benninghoff used his legal knowledge to offer legal advice and counsel, prepare legal documents, and attempt to secure his clients’ legal rights. If laypeople are allowed to engage in this kind of representation—an issue we need not decide—it would be an exception to the general rule that only active bar members may…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.