beneficiaries, he is not afforded the personal right of self-representation. Secondly, the Texas Legislature has defined the practice of law to include, among other things, “the preparation of pleadings or other documents incident to an action or special proceeding or the management of the action or proceeding on behalf of a client before a judge in court....” Consistent with that legislative mandate, Relator’s appearance in the trial court in his capacity as trustee falls within this definition of the “practice of law.” Accordingly, if a non-attorney trustee appears in court on behalf of the trust, he or she necessarily represents the interests of others, which amounts to the unauthorized practice of law. See Ziegler v. Nickel, 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 549, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude the trial court did
holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that a nonattorney trustee who represents the trust in court is representing and affecting the interest of the beneficiary and is thus engaged in the unauthorized practice of law holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction