ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 10, 1997
    RIVERVIEW FS,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-226
    (UST - Reimbursement)
    INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by K.M. Hennessey):
    This matter comes before the Board on the June 17, 1997 petition of Stan Tobias,
    Riverview FS (petitioner). Petitioner seeks review of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency’s (Agency) decision on petitioner’s request for reimbursement of certain costs petitioner
    incurred in remediating a leaking underground storage tank (UST) site at 1925 Meridan Road,
    Rockford, Illinois (site).
    The petition was filed by Steve Thornhill, CPG, Environmental Consultant/Geologist of
    Terra Nova Research, Inc. “on behalf of Mr. Stan Tobias, Riverview FS.” Petition at 1. The
    petition does not indicate that Mr. Thornhill is an attorney. As explained below, Illinois law
    allows only attorneys to represent others before the Board. Therefore, the Board does not accept
    this case for hearing, but orders petitioner to file an amended petition within 45 days from the
    date of this order.
    The Board further notes that the petition does not disclose whether petitioner is a
    corporation or a sole proprietorship. If petitioner is a corporation, Illinois law requires petitioner
    to file the amended petition through an attorney. If petitioner is an unincorporated sole
    proprietorship, Illinois law allows petitioner to represent himself without the aid of an attorney.
    In that event, petitioner must file the amended petition on his own behalf, over his own signature.
    This order is necessary to ensure that any decision of the Board in this matter is not subject to
    challenge on the grounds that a non-attorney represented petitioner,
    DISCUSSION
    In another case before the Board today, In re: Petition of Recycle Technologies, Inc.
    (July 10, 1997), AS 97-9 (RTI), the Agency argued that the Attorney Act (705 ILCS 205/1
    et
    seq
    . (1996)) and the Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act (CPLP Act) (705 ILCS
    220/1
    et seq
    . (1996)) apply to the practice of law before the Board. Section 1 of the Attorney
    Act provides in part: “No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at
    law within this State without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from the
    2
    Supreme Court of this State.” 705 ILCS 205/1 (1996). Section 1 of the CPLP Act
    specifically prohibits corporations from practicing law: “It shall be unlawful for a corporation
    to practice law or appear as an attorney at law for any reason in any court in this state or
    before any judicial body.” 705 ILCS 220/1 (1996). In RTI, the Agency argued that these
    laws did not allow a non-attorney to represent a corporation in an adjusted standard proceeding
    before the Board. See RTI (July 10, 1997), AS 97-9, slip op. at 3, citing People v. Goodman,
    366 Ill. 346, 357, 8 N.E.2d 941, 947, cert. denied, 302 U.S. 728 (1937) (“The character of
    the act done, and not the place where it is committed, is the factor which is decisive of
    whether it constitutes the practice of law.”). The Board agreed. Although the Agency has not
    objected to Mr. Thornhill’s appearance in this case, the Board finds that these laws apply in
    this case as well.
    In support of its findings in RTI, the Board relied on a series of cases in which the
    courts had held that representation of a person or corporation in pre-trial and trial proceedings
    was the practice of law. See,
    e.g
    ., Midwest Home Savings & Loan v. Ridgewood, 123 Ill.
    App. 3d 1001, 463 N.E.2d 909 (5th Dist. 1984) (filing of notice of appeal is the practice of
    law); Marken Real Estate & Management Corporation v. Adams, 56 Ill. App. 3d 426, 371
    N.E.2d 1192 (1st Dist. 1977) (representation in pretrial proceedings constitutes the practice of
    law). The same cases compel the Board to find that Mr. Thornhill’s representation of a party
    seeking review of an IEPA decision on a request for reimbursement of UST cleanup costs
    constitutes the practice of law.
    In RTI, the Board also found that no exceptions allowed a non-attorney to represent a
    corporation before the Board in that case. RTI (July 10, 1997), AS 97-9, slip op. at 5. The
    exceptions in the Attorney Act that allow non-attorneys to practice before certain
    administrative agencies do not extend to the Board. See 720 ILCS 205/11 (1996). Similarly,
    the exceptions in the CPLP Act do not apply to practice before the Board. 720 ILCS 220/5
    (1996); RTI (July 10, 1997), AS 97-9, slip op. at 5. For the same reasons, the Board also
    finds that no exceptions to these laws allow Mr. Thornhill to represent petitioner in this case.
    This case differs from RTI in one respect: here, unlike in RTI, the petition does not
    make clear whether petitioner is a corporation or an unincorporated sole proprietorship. In
    either case, however, Mr. Thornhill may not represent petitioner. See,
    e.g.
    , Blue v. Illinois,
    223 Ill. App. 3d 594, 597, 585 N.E.2d 625, 626 (2d Dist. 1992) (Attorney Act prohibited
    father from representing minor son in habeas corpus complaint); Marken, 56 Ill. App. 3d at
    429, 371 N.E.2d at 1194 (CPLP Act requires corporation to appear through an attorney).
    In RTI, the Board also found that dismissal of the case was unwarranted, even though a
    non-attorney had initiated the case by filing the petition. The Board noted that a Board rule
    allowed non-attorneys to represent corporations in such cases, and that the Agency had never
    before objected to the rule. The Board found the situation analogous to that in Janiczek v.
    Dover Management Co., 134 Ill. App. 3d 543, 481 N.E.2d 25 (1st Dist. 1985), in which the
    client unwittingly retained a disbarred attorney to file a case on his behalf. After discovering
    that his attorney had been disbarred, the client retained substitute counsel. The court found
    that the initial participation of the disbarred attorney did not render the proceedings a nullity,
    3
    given the special circumstances in that case. In RTI, the Board found that the Board’s rules,
    and the Agency’s prior conduct, also created special circumstances that justified a departure
    from the general rule. RTI (July 10, 1997), AS 97-9, slip op. at 6.
    Similar special circumstances exist here. If petitioner is a corporation, the Board’s
    rules allow a non-attorney to appear in this case. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.107(a)(2). If
    petitioner is not a corporation, the Board’s rules allow any “representative” to represent
    petitioner in this case. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.107(a)(3).
    1
    The Agency has never objected
    to this rule. Given the current rules and the absence of any challenge to this rule, as described
    more fully in RTI, the Board finds that Mr. Thornhill reasonably could have assumed that he
    could represent petitioner in this proceeding. For that reason, and the other reasons cited in
    RTI, the Board finds dismissal of this case unwarranted.
    To ensure that any decision of the Board in this matter is not subject to challenge on the
    grounds that a non-attorney represented petitioner, however, the Board orders petitioner to file
    an amended petition within 45 days of the date of this order. If petitioner is a corporation,
    petitioner must file its amended petition through an attorney. If petitioner is an unincorporated
    sole proprietorship, petitioner may file an amended petition through an attorney, or petitioner
    may file an amended petition on his own behalf, over his own signature. After petitioner files
    a proper amended petition, the Board will determine whether to accept this matter for hearing.
    ORDER
    1. Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition within 45 days of the date of this order.
     
    2. If petitioner is a corporation, petitioner must file its amended petition through an attorney,
    who also must file an appearance. If petitioner is an unincorporated sole proprietorship,
    petitioner may file its amended petition through an attorney or on its own behalf, over
    petitioner’s signature.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J.T. Meyer dissented.
    1
    The Board has proposed revisions to its rules that would allow only an attorney to file an
    appearance on behalf of a corporation or another individual. See In re: Revision of the
    Board’s Procedural Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101-130 (October 3, 1996), R97-8, slip op. at
    10-11.
    4
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 10th day of July 1997, by a vote of 5-1.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top