In re the Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 538

Estate property was sold at a judicial tax sale on May 15, 2012; Carl F. Miller, the decedent's son‑in‑law and estate administrator, filed a Petition to Vacate Judicial Tax Sale alleging procedural defects.
The Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau moved to dismiss, arguing Miller (a non‑lawyer) was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by representing the Estate; alternatively it asked the court to compel counsel.
On February 28, 2013 the trial court granted the Bureau's motion but stayed dismissal for 60 days to allow Miller to retain counsel; absent counsel the Petition would be dismissed.
Miller appealed before the 60‑day period expired and argued he should be permitted to proceed pro se for the Estate.
The appellate court first found the trial court order appealable as a collateral order and then addressed whether a non‑attorney administrator may represent an estate in court.
The court concluded estates are like separate legal entities and, because estate litigation can involve third parties, creditors, taxes, and complex legal issues, a non‑attorney administrator may not represent the estate; the trial court’s order was affirmed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is properly before the court (collateral order jurisdiction)	Miller: order requires counsel but does not dispose; he can appeal as of right as collateral order	Bureau: order is interlocutory and appealable only by permission	Court: order is a collateral order — separable, implicates important rights, and would be lost if review postponed; appellate jurisdiction proper
Whether a non‑attorney administrator may represent an estate in court	Miller: as administrator and decedent's relative, he should be allowed to proceed pro se to protect estate interests	Bureau: permitting Miller to proceed is unauthorized practice of law and harms third‑party/interested parties	Court: Non‑attorneys may not represent an estate in court; estate litigation involves complex legal issues and affected third parties, so counsel is required

Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (explains collateral‑order doctrine and narrow application)
Harkness v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007) (factors for when non‑attorney representation before administrative agencies may be allowed)
Brophy v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 921 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (narrow application of collateral order doctrine)
Westmoreland County v. RTA Group, Inc., 767 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (non‑attorney engaged in unauthorized practice of law by handling tax appeals)
Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth, 767 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (non‑attorney pastor could not represent organization)
Smaha v. Landy, 638 A.2d 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (corporation must have counsel; non‑attorney cannot represent corporate entity)
Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 1984) (corporation cannot appear pro se through non‑attorney officer)
Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997) (executor/administratrix may not proceed pro se where estate has other beneficiaries or creditors)
In re Lawrence County Tax Claim Bureau, 998 A.2d 675 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (distinguishes partnership pro se representation from estates; general partner can act for partnership but estate is a separate entity)
Goldman v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 57 A.3d 1154 (Pa. 2012) (lower federal decisions persuasive but not binding)