Background
Christopher Prosser, a Missouri resident, registered his telephone number on the Missouri No Call List. He alleged that Over There Land Company, LLC nonetheless sent him three unsolicited text messages to his residential number in January 2025. Prosser filed a three-count petition in Jefferson County Circuit Court asserting violations of Missouri’s Do Not Call statute (count one), Missouri’s No Call Law (count two), and vicarious liability against Daniel Kellas as the LLC’s owner (count three).
Kellas — who is not a licensed Missouri attorney — responded by filing a joint motion to dismiss on behalf of both himself and Over There Land Company, LLC, attaching several exhibits. Prosser moved to strike the exhibits for lack of authentication and sought sanctions against Kellas for alleged fraud. Before ruling on those pending motions, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, ultimately entering a final judgment on November 6, 2025 dismissing all three counts with prejudice. Prosser timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Kellas’s motion to dismiss was a legal nullity because he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filing it on behalf of the LLC. Under longstanding Missouri authority, a corporation may appear in court only through a licensed attorney; a layperson — even the sole owner — cannot represent a corporate entity. Because Kellas filed a single joint motion seeking relief for both himself and the LLC, the entire pleading was invalidated, not merely the portions pertaining to the corporation.
The court reviewed the issue for plain error because Prosser had not raised it before the circuit court, but found the error clear and outcome-determinative. It emphasized that prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law are not subject to waiver, consent, or lack of objection by the opposing party, and that allowing the dismissal to stand would effectively condone lay representation of statutory entities in Missouri courts. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, dismissing Prosser’s remaining three points as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A corporation or LLC cannot appear or file pleadings in Missouri courts except through a licensed attorney; an owner or member acting pro se on the entity’s behalf engages in unauthorized practice of law.
- A joint motion filed by a non-attorney on behalf of both himself and a corporate co-defendant is entirely void — the unauthorized practice taints the whole pleading, not just the portions relating to the entity.
- Missouri’s prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law cannot be waived by the opposing party or cured by the opponent’s failure to object in the trial court; plain error review is available and will be exercised when the error undermines the foundation of the proceeding.
- A circuit court’s subsequent adjustment of the caption to separate the defendants does not retroactively legitimize a filing made in violation of the unauthorized-practice statutes.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder for small-business owners and solo operators who assume they can handle litigation themselves when their company is sued or needs to file motions. In Missouri, the moment a natural person files a pleading on behalf of an LLC or corporation — even as its sole member — that filing is void as a matter of law, and no amount of procedural acquiescence by the other side can rescue it.
For plaintiffs’ attorneys pursuing Do Not Call or consumer-protection claims against small entities, the case also highlights a powerful procedural argument: if the defendant’s only responsive filing was made by a non-lawyer owner, the entire defense pleading may be attacked as a nullity even on plain error review, potentially reinstating a dismissed case and returning the plaintiff to court with claims intact.