I don't know what the official translation of "Turno de Oficio" is, but the main underlying point here is that some official document (which presumably was accepted by the court, unless indicated otherwise) was presented by the individual in question, and validated his/her representation in the court of a third party.

It seems that, in the present case, the fact of the officialdocument's presentation and acceptance is more important than what precisely it was called. Of course, if there are then numerous subsequent references to the "Turno de Oficio", then this kind of solution will not work.

Suerte.

Suerte.