I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.
Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners are not the corporation. The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.
Some jurisdictions may have rules deviating from this to allow corporate pro se representation by 100% shareholders in small claims matters, but they would be the exception.
The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.
I don't follow the logic here. If it's fictitious and incompetent to stand trial, then why it can be brought to trial at all?
> Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.
Failure to report a crime is a crime. For everybody.
Irrelevant. Violation of a legal obligation is not the same thing as commission of a crime. An act may simultaneously be a violation of legal ethics and a crime, but usually not. Ethics violations are punishable by, amongst other things, civil sanctions, fines and disbarment, but not criminal penalties.
Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners are not the corporation. The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.
Some jurisdictions may have rules deviating from this to allow corporate pro se representation by 100% shareholders in small claims matters, but they would be the exception.