Ayant pour Avocat le Cabinet XXX

14:06 Jan 16, 2020 

Thanks for the explanation, Yves.

18:05 Jan 15, 2020 

My bad, I meant to write : Mr. XXX represents the corporation, instead of "the person".
Also, by "legal capacity", I meant as a lawyer or solicitor.
So, to conclude, Mr. XXX is the company's statutory representative, or its "représentant légal". It is likely that he is the chairman of the company, as is often the case in France. As far as his legal defence is concerned, it is provided by "Cabinet XXX".
Sorry for the mistake in my previous answer.

17:10 Jan 15, 2020 

Yves, this statement does not make sense, either linguistically or in context: "In my opinion it could be that Monsieur XX is just representing the person, as a "représentant légal" in no legal capacity."

1. Linguistically: you're translating a legal document and mentioning the term "représentant légal." So what on earth do you mean by "in no legal capacity"?!

2. Context: see above; also, what "person" is Mr. XXX representing, when it says right in your source document that the party being represented by Mr. XXX is a corporation?

11:20 Jan 15, 2020 

No further context except that presented by the source text has been given.
In my opinion it could be that Monsieur XX is just representing the person, as a "représentant légal" in no legal capacity.
More source context :
TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE MARSEILLE
Jugement du X Juillet 2018
SA XX Corporation
Représentée par Monsieur XXX
En personne,
Ayant pour Avocat le Cabinet XXX, Avocat au barreau de Paris pris en la personne de Me XXX Avocat au barreau de Paris,
Co-Administrateurs Judiciaires
SCP XXX,
Co- Mandataires judiciaires
SCP XXX
Et
Cocontractants
Société XXX Département clientèle
non comparant
COMPOSITION DU TRIBUNAL"

19:43 Jan 14, 2020 

That's certainly a possibility, but the Asker should confirm or correct it.

18:43 Jan 14, 2020 

It could be talking about a company that is represented by Mr XXX (e.g. he is the company's CEO) and has Cabinet XXX as its counsel.

18:41 Jan 14, 2020 

Why is Monsieur XXX representing themself if he has instructed a firm of lawyers? There seems to be a contradiction here.