Mouktabis v. Amarou

A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action based solely upon his or her guardian ad litem status. Christman v. Scott, 183 Or 113, 117-18, 191 P2d 389 (1948). Non-attorney guardians ad litem who appear pro se are engaging in the unlawful practice of law; only members of the Oregon State Bar may appear on behalf of another. ORS 9.160(1); ORS 9.320.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as his minor daughter’s guardian ad litem.  Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioner’s order requiring Plaintiff to retain legal representation within 30 days or have the appeal dismissed for lack of prosecution.  Plaintiff argued that he, as guardian ad litem, was “authorized to prosecute the case” and was allowed to appear pro se.  Defendant asserted that Plaintiff lacked authority to file the appeal because he was not an attorney, nor a “party in person.”  A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action based solely upon his or her guardian ad litem status.  Christman v. Scott, 183 Or 113, 117-18, 191 P2d 389 (1948).  Non-attorney guardians ad litem who appear pro se are engaging in the unlawful practice of law; only members of the Oregon State Bar may appear on behalf of another.  ORS 9.160(1); ORS 9.320.  After interpreting the statute, the Court found that Plaintiff engaged in the practice of law when he filed legal documents on his daughter's behalf.  The Court held that Plaintiff was “not permitted to engage in the practice of law” as guardian ad litem because he was not appearing on his own behalf, nor was he a member of the Oregon State Bar.  “Reconsideration allowed; order of Appellate Commissioner adhered to.”