However, I'm assuming that this law was put into place because
(a) Most non-lawyers can't do a good legal job and don't know the law (or loopholes). So they are likely to do themselves harm.
(b) I think that verdicts can be reversed if it is proven that counsel was unqualified. This means that the case will need to be retried with a more qualified lawyer.
That said, I think that judges can make exceptions in some cases and let a non-lawyer represent themselves.I'm assuming that this may be true for a founder representing his/her company as well.
A corporation is considered a person, and that person is separate and distinct from its employees, officers, and directors.
So for the corporation to appear pro se, it must actually appear in court, but there is no way for a corporation to do that because it really isn't a person.
So any officer arguing on behalf of the corporation is actually engaging in the unlawful practice of law without a license by representing the "person" corporation.
Your (a) is the common public policy reason given why lawyers need to be licensed. I offer no opinion on its wisdom.
Regarding (b), to get a new trial it is more difficult. You need to prove dereliction of duty (every state varies here) by the attorney AND that the errors caused you to lose and you would have won otherwise. Very difficult standard to meet. This rule protects lawyers greatly, to the detriment of their clients.
However, I'm assuming that this law was put into place because
(a) Most non-lawyers can't do a good legal job and don't know the law (or loopholes). So they are likely to do themselves harm.
(b) I think that verdicts can be reversed if it is proven that counsel was unqualified. This means that the case will need to be retried with a more qualified lawyer.
That said, I think that judges can make exceptions in some cases and let a non-lawyer represent themselves.I'm assuming that this may be true for a founder representing his/her company as well.