Attorney's authority is presumed.

- Presumption is that attorneys are duly authorized to represent in particular matter persons for whom attorneys appear. Howell v. Howell, 188 Ga. 803, 4 S.E.2d 835 (1939).

Apparent authority of attorney.

- Rule giving attorneys apparent authority, which is plenary from the perspective of the opposing party, applies only to an attorney of record, that is, if the attorney is the attorney for a particular client and is actually authorized to represent the client in the cause or proceeding in which the third party seeks to bind the attorney. Addley v. Beizer, 205 Ga. App. 714, 423 S.E.2d 398, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 899, 423 S.E.2d 398 (1992).

Presumption that attorneys are duly authorized to represent in particular matters persons for whom the attorneys appear can only be rebutted in the manner provided in this section. Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen, 129 Ga. App. 134, 199 S.E.2d 260 (1973); Londeau v. Davis, 136 Ga. App. 25, 220 S.E.2d 43 (1975).

Presumption that attorney acts with authority rebuttable.

- No warrant of attorney is required in Georgia, and an acknowledgment of service signed by one as attorney for defendant is prima facie authorized until the contrary appears; this presumption is not conclusive but may be rebutted by the party for whom the attorney purports to act if the party proceeds in due time, the burden being upon the party to show the want of authority in the attorney. Jackson v. Jackson, 199 Ga. 716, 35 S.E.2d 258 (1945).

Attorney presumed to have authority to sue absent instructions.

- When creditor places with attorney for collection a claim against another, unless the creditor gives direct instructions not to bring an action, the law presumes the attorney has the authority to bring the action and to do all else necessary to effect the collection. M & M Mars v. Jones, 129 Ga. App. 389, 199 S.E.2d 617 (1973).

Authority of attorney acknowledging service of bill of exceptions presumed.

- Attorney, in acknowledging service of a bill of exceptions (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-49 and5-6-50) on behalf of the defendant in error, is presumably, at the time, attorney for the defendant in error with authority to make the acknowledgment. Bell v. Macon Fin. Co., 42 Ga. App. 258, 155 S.E. 493 (1930).

Appellate courts cannot review attorney's authority to acknowledge service.

- Issue of whether attorney who has acknowledged service of bill of exceptions (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-49 and5-6-50) for and on behalf of the defendant in error had authority to do so cannot be determined in the Court of Appeals. Bell v. Macon Fin. Co., 42 Ga. App. 258, 155 S.E. 493 (1930).

Acknowledgment of service binds on defendant absent contrary showing.

- Acknowledgment of service by attorney for defendant estops attorney from later contending that the attorney acted without authority; thus, if no counter showing is made on behalf of the defendant, by someone not estopped, that the attorney did not in fact represent the defendant, the court does not err in ruling that the acknowledgment was authorized and binding upon the defendant. Jackson v. Jackson, 199 Ga. 716, 35 S.E.2d 258 (1945).

Actions open to court on showing of unauthorized appearance of attorney.

- General rule is that at any stage of the proceedings, when it is properly suggested to the court that a party plaintiff is represented by unauthorized counsel, the court may call such counsel to show the counsel's authority, and, if the counsel is unauthorized, the court may suspend further proceedings or dismiss the action so far as such party is concerned; if, however, the cause has proceeded to final judgment without such question being raised, then only the party who was not properly represented may take advantage of such unauthorized appearance. Felker v. Johnson, 189 Ga. 797, 7 S.E.2d 668 (1940).

Judgment upon unauthorized appearance may be set aside.

- Judgment rendered against party, either plaintiff or defendant, upon a wholly unauthorized appearance of attorney, if the act of the attorney is not ratified, will be set aside in a direct proceeding for that purpose, in law or equity, if the party is not guilty of unreasonable delay after notice or knowledge of the judgment; and this relief will be granted irrespective of the solvency of the attorney making the appearance. Jackson v. Jackson, 199 Ga. 716, 35 S.E.2d 258 (1945).

Consequences suffered by attorney acting without authority.

- In this state no warrant of attorney is required by Georgia's laws or by the practice of Georgia's courts to entitle an attorney to appear for a party litigant either in the trial or appellate court; and the strong presumption arises from the attorney's appearance that the attorney is authorized to appear and to act for the client whom the attorney assumes to represent since the attorney is an officer of the court and may be found in contempt of court and subject to a fine if the attorney appears for a person without being employed, and may be liable in damages for any loss or injury sustained by a person who gave the attorney no authority to represent that party. Royal Millinery Co. v. Elgin Hat Co., 66 Ga. App. 734, 19 S.E.2d 185 (1942).

Representation of multiple defendants.

- Plaintiff's conclusory statement that to the best of plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief an attorney did not have authority to represent each defendant in the case did not provide reasonable grounds to require proof of the attorney's authority. Ware v. Fidelity Acceptance Corp., 225 Ga. App. 41, 482 S.E.2d 536 (1997).

Cited in Malsby & Co. v. Widincamp, 143 Ga. 168, 84 S.E. 544 (1915); Carlock v. Emery, 104 Ga. App. 783, 123 S.E.2d 309 (1961); Hodges v. Youmans, 129 Ga. App. 481, 200 S.E.2d 157 (1973); Freeman v. Irving-Cloud Pub. Co., 157 Ga. App. 624, 278 S.E.2d 167 (1981); Board of Tax Assessors v. Clary, 161 Ga. App. 828, 290 S.E.2d 110 (1982); Newell v. Brown, 187 Ga. App. 9, 369 S.E.2d 499 (1988).

Burden on client to show attorney in foreign state acted without authority.

- If in action in this state the defendant, whether a natural person or a corporation, is seeking to escape the binding effect of a foreign judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the exemplification of the record of the action in the foreign state shows that the defendant appeared by attorney at law and filed a pleading, the defendant bears the burden of introducing evidence to show that the attorney acted without authority. Royal Millinery Co. v. Elgin Hat Co., 66 Ga. App. 734, 19 S.E.2d 185 (1942).

Estoppel.

- If a client acquiesced for 16 years to a judgment confessed by an attorney, the client is estopped to deny the attorney's authority now. Parish v. McLeod, 73 Ga. 123 (1884).

Action authorized absent contrary showing.

- If the petition in the case was signed by counsel as "attorneys for plaintiff," and the presumption is that the attorneys were authorized to represent all of the plaintiffs named in the petition, there being no evidence to overcome this presumption, the court did not err in finding that the action was authorized. Aycock v. Williams, 185 Ga. 585, 196 S.E. 54 (1938).

If in an action against several defendants an attorney filed an answer and general and special demurrers (now motions to dismiss), signing the same as "Defendants' Attorney," it will be presumed, nothing to the contrary appearing, that the attorney was in fact authorized to represent all of such defendants, and to file such pleadings on defendant's behalf. Cannon v. Whiddon, 194 Ga. 417, 21 S.E.2d 850 (1942).

May inquire into authority of assistant attorneys absent objection.

- In prosecution for assault with intent to murder, court did not err in failing to inquire as to the authority of two attorneys who allegedly assisted the solicitor general (now district attorney) in the presentation of the case since no request at all was made to the court and no objection was made by the defendant. McCoy v. State, 74 Ga. App. 889, 41 S.E.2d 830 (1947).

Attorney's preparing papers for client sufficient to find employment.

- If an attorney prepared papers which were adopted by the client and the opposing counsel recognized that attorney as an attorney in the case, this was sufficient evidence of employment by the client. Hood & Robinson v. Ware, 34 Ga. 328 (1866); Simms v. Floyd, 65 Ga. 719 (1880).

Must dismiss garnishment proceedings if attorney unauthorized.

- If garnishment proceedings have been instituted upon affidavit of attorney at law, who has no authority to act for the personal representative of deceased plaintiff and who is acting in the interest of a creditor of a deceased plaintiff, and the personal representative of the deceased plaintiff moves to dismiss the garnishment proceedings on the ground that the attorney was acting without authority and that the deceased had not authorized the institution of such proceedings, it was error for the court to render a judgment refusing to dismiss the proceedings. Arnold v. Citizens' & S. Nat'l Bank, 47 Ga. App. 254, 170 S.E. 316 (1933).

Question of attorney's authority to appear before appellate stage.

- If defendant in error fails to question attorney's authority to appear as one of counsel for plaintiff in error before the superior court judge until the case has reached the Court of Appeals, it is too late for the defendant in error to be heard on the question. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Russell, 102 Ga. App. 597, 117 S.E.2d 239 (1960); Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen, 129 Ga. App. 134, 199 S.E.2d 260 (1973).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, § 156 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 7A C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 197.

ALR.

- Agreement or understanding between attorney and client to use money for unlawful purposes as affecting their rights inter se, 20 A.L.R. 1476; 26 A.L.R. 98.

Ratification of attorney's unauthorized compromise of action, 5 A.L.R.5th 56.