Page 1




eligible for partIcIpation in the Association's Group Disability Plan. Over $400,000 in disability payments have been paid to members of the association since the plan was started in l 1946. The rates are approximate-' Iy half what you would be required to pay for an individual policy. Other plans available include Ma路路 jor Medical, Life, Accident, Professional Liability & Catastrophic.

And Don't Forget



You Wi II serv:

your profession by supporting the Association's continuing efforts to improve stands of legal education, of judicial administration and admissions to the bar. Your help protect the lawyer's professional status by opposing unauthorized practice, and through an expanded program of public service activities.

the good fellol".ship and the development of close friendships with your brother lawyers at Association activities. This is an opportunity tu serve yourself and the publ ic as well. receive every issue of The Arkansas Lawyer which will bring you interesting, information articles about law, lawyers, court decisions, legal literature, meeting schedules, and news of developments of value in your practice. Your membership includes your Arkansas Lawyer subscription.

You Wi II


314 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas

MAY 1969 VOL. 2 NO.9



ASSOCIA TlON OFFICERS J. Gaston Williamson. President Robert L. Jones. Pres. Elect Philip E. Dixon. Secretary-Treasurer EXECUTIVE OIRECTOR C. E. Ransick EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Robert Shults. Chairman Robert C. Compton Stephen A. Matthews Winslow Drummond Otis H. Turner Wayne Boyce EX-OFFICIO J. Gaston Williamson Robert L. Jones. Jr. Philip E. Dixon William E. Henslee William S. Arnold Richard H. Mays Phillip Carroll Louis L. Ramsay. Jr. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE James W. Moore-Philip E. Dixon J. Michael Shaw-Willis B. Smith Jr. John A. Davis-Dennis L. Shackleford Charles M. Mooney-Eugene Raft Jr. Eugene A. Matthews Jr.-Lynn F. Wade Philip S. Anderson Jr.-Glenn W. Jones

"The Unified Bar-Integration or Disintegration"

. • . . . .Campbell Thomal 12

"Handling Tort Claim Cases in Federa I Cou rt" . . Annual Meeting Program

. Robert Fussell 4

......•.....•...... B

Committee and Section Reports


REGULAR FEATURES The Presidents Report

.J. Gaston Williamson 3

Juris Dictum

. . C. R. Huie 7

Law School News

R. G. Brockmann 6

Oyez Oyez

. . . B. Ghormley 2

Published Quarterly by the Arkansas Bar Association. 314 West Markham, Little Rock, Ark. 72201. Second class postage to non-members of the Arkansas Bar Association $6.00 per year and to members $2.00 per year included in annual dues. Any




is thai

of the

authOr, and is not necessarily that of the Arkansas Bar Association. The Arkansas Lawyer, or the editorial committee. Contributions to The Arkansas Lawyer are welcomed and should be sent, in two copies to the Arkansas Bar Center, 314 West Mark· ham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

All inquiries regarding advertising should be sent to Bill Logan, Advertising Department, Arkansas Lawyer, post office Box 4117 North Little Rock, Ark. 72] ]6. '





General State Agent for Arkansas BEACH ABSTRACT & TITLE COMPANY Telephone: FRanklin 6-3301 213 West Second Street

Little Rock, Arkansas

Assets Over $19,000,000.00

AGENCIES IN 16 STATES Subject To State Supervision Everywhere. Member of American Land Title Association

302 Cherry Helena, Arkansas Member Federal Deposil InsUfince CQrporation


By B. Ghonnley This column will be a potpourri of Bar news. Contributions from our members are most welcome. The Honorable F. O. Butt, of Eureka Springs and the Honorable C. M. Buck of Blytheville were admitted to practice in 1891 and 1901, respectively. William S. Arnold of Crossett was one of eighty invited lawyers from across the country to participate in the First National Conference on Current Problems Affecting the Practicing Lawyer at the Palmer House in Chicago, January 22-24, 1969. Circuit Judge Maupin Cummings, of Fayetteville swore in attorney Bill Enfield of Bentonville as his successor in Benton County, for which he has been criminal and civil judge the past twenty-two years. Craighead County Bar Association honored Judge Archer Wheatley of Jonesboro who has been in the legal profession for sixty years and was an original member of the Barrett, Wheatley, Smith and Deacon law fIrm. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the 18th Judicial District, George M. Callahan conducted a symposium on "Criminal Status and Procedures and Concept of Peneolgy" for members of Garland County Legal Secretaries Association at their January meeting. Philip E. Dixon, Little Rock, Secretary-Treasurer of the Arkansas Bar Association, has been named Secretary-Director of the Constitutional Convention. Edw: rd L. Wright was named recipient of the 1969 Brotherhood and Humanitarian Award of the Arkansas Region of the National Conference of Cluistian and Jews. Newly created Sheridan Municipal Court has as its Municipal Judge, attorney John Walton Cole, Jr., a 1967 graduate. Larry W. Chandler, previously with the Attorney General's OffIce in Little Rock, has moved into the law practice with W. D. McKay in Magnolia. James C. Johnson, former Assistant State Attorney General, has gone into private practice of law in Mountain Home. After 23 years in the same location, N. J. Henley is moving his offIce. Mr. Henley will be practicing in his own bu.ilding on Nome Street in Marshall, Arkansas. Pope-Yell Bar Association recently elected Robert E. Irwin, President; James K. Young, Vice-President; and Don Stumbaugh, Secretary-Treasurer. The new offIcers of the Columbia County Bar Association are Joe Woodward, PreSident; Rodney T. Chambers, Vice-President; and Harry B. Colay, Secretary-Treasurer. Independence County Bar Association now has W. D. Murphy, Jr. as President; John Purtle as Vice-President; and Mrs. Bernice McSpadden as SecretaryTreasurer. C. R. Huie, Executive Secretary, Arkansas Judicial Council, since July I, 1965, addressed the weekly luncheon meeting of the Crossett Lions Club on April 8 concerning court administration in Arkansas. Bob Mayes, newly appointed Juvenile Court Judge, was introduced at a luncheon meeting of the Juvenile Court Advisory Committee Wednesday at Fayetteville. The State Board of Law Examiners announced that 40 persons passed the state bar examinations given March 24, 25 and 26 at Little Rock. Alston Jennings of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, Little Rock, discussed "the mechanics of assessing and collecting personal and real property taxes" at a meeting April 10 sponsored by the Prairie County Development Council's Education Committee.





Association. It has not been a normal session, and the

members of the Legislature have experienced unusual frustrations. Vet the Legislature as a whole dealt more kindly with the legislature program of the Bar Association than with the programs sponsored by most of the other groups. The major Bar-sponsored bills which became law were the new Inheritance Code (Act 303), the Jury Selection Act (Act 568), the Increases in Judges Salaries (Act 344) and the Uniform Arbitration Act (Act 260). Only one major Bar-sponsored bill was not passed-a bill to create a Public Defender system which failed because of a lack of revenues to fund the projected $500,000 annual cost. Among the minor Bar-sponsored bills which

by J. Gas/oil Williamson It was with mixed emotions of gratitude and awe that I faced my term as President of the Arkansas Bar AssociaHon almost a year ago-gratitude for the honor and confidence expressed by the Association in offering

me a posilion of leadership, and awe at the multiplicity of problems seeking recognition and action by OUT Association. It is now with mixed emotions of gratitude and regret

that I approach the end of my term as President of our Association-gratitude that my responsibilities are almost

at an end, and regret that I have not been able to achieve as much as I had hoped. But it has been a rich and rewarding experience for which I am deeply indebted to each member of the Association.

This Bar year has not been a normal one. The long terminal illness of our late Executive Director, leRoy B. Gaston, and the subsequent search for a successor to Mr. Gaston left our Association without an active Executive

Director for a period of about eight months, during which time Mrs. Judith Gray, Assistant Executive Director, Mrs. Barbara Ghormley, our Membership Secretary, and Philip E. Dixon, our Secretary-Treasurer, performed admirably

in keeping the office funcHoning. Our Association was extremely fortunate in being able to employ Col. C. E. Ransick as our new Executive Director. Although he has been with us only since January 15, 1969, he has rapidly become acquainted with the work and problems of our Association and has already begun a number of improvements in the administration of the Bar Center-all while in the throes of moving our offices from our old Bar Center buOding to the newly acquired and adjacent buOding to the North. (See report of Arkansas Bar Foundation elsewhere in this issue). As Col. Ransick becomes better acquainted with Our members, he will increasingly be recognized as a god-send to our Association.

Since the regular biennial session of the Legislature feU within this Bar year, a vast amount of time has been spent by a large number of our members in drafting proposed new legislation, studying bills proposed by others which had some bearing on the administration of justice, and

working for the enactment of bills sponsored by the Bar

passed was Act 359, which permits the assignment of Group Life Insurance, and Act 4, which is the Uniform Anatomical Gifts Law. All in all, the Bar Association batted about .700 on its legislative program, a gratifying average for this particular year. Space does not permit me to acknowledge individually the debt of gratitude owed by our Association to the many who worked so hard on various aspects of this program; I can only say "Many thanks to each of you for a job well done." The normal work of the Association through Our Sections and our Standing, Permanent and Special Committees has been carried on throughout the Bar year,

as may be seen in detaO through the annual reports of these groups published in this issue of The Arkansas Lawyer. Again space does not pemlit me to comment on

the line work of each of these bar groups, but I wish to express to the chairman and members of each my deep appreciation for your dedicated service to the Association

this year. I must, however, direct particular attention to the

report of the Committee on the Reorganization of the Bar, since special emphasis has been placed on the work of this committee during this Bar year. This committee,

under the chairmanship of J. L. (Bex) Shaver, was charged with the foUowing responsibilities: (a) To draft a proposed new Constitution and By-Laws for the Arkansas Bar which would provide for the democratic election of a governing

body representing all sections of the State and responsive to the will of the majority of practicing attorneys;

(b) To inform the lawyers of Arkansas of the proposed new Constitution and By-Laws and of the advantages of a unilied bar; (c) If the Arkansas Bar Association so directs by a vote at its annual meeting in June, 1969, to me a petition in the Arkansas Supreme Court requesting an Order of Unilication of the Arkansas Bar pursuant to the proposed new Constitution and By-Laws; and (d) If so requested by the Court, to seek to learn through a mail poll the opinion of each attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas as to whether or not he favors a unilied bar under the proposed new Constitution and By-Laws. continued on page 14


Handling Tort Claim Cases ROBERT FUSSELL INTRODUCTION In 1965 claims totaling $36,860,902.30 were med against the United States of America in federal district court in Arkansas as a result of the explosion at the Titan II missile silo near Searcy, Arkansas, in August of that year. Last year more than $4,000,000 in claims resulting from automobile accidents and slip and fall incidents were either submitted to federal agencies located in Arkansas, or med in federal district court in Arkansas. With the continuation of growth in size by the federal government and the Congressional trend to broaden the scope of liability of the United States Government, undoubtedly practice in federal courts will become even more lucrative in

the future for attorneys. The purpose of this article is to point out some of the common pitfalls which occur in handling cases med under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and to suggest procedures to be followed which will assure a speedy and more successful determination of your client's claim. First, let us make clear to what sections of Title 28, U.S.C. we refer when we mention the Tort Claims Act. Seeton 1346(b) of Title 28 confers jurisdiction on the federal courts to entertain tort actions against the government. Sections 2401 et seq., spell out in details the limits of the government's liability and the procedures to be followed in suing the government.

Particular attention is called to the exclusiveness of the remedy in certain cases. to the requirement that administrative

remedies be exhausted, to the right of the government to substitute itself as a party defendant, to the unavailability of lraiJ by jury, to the limitation of liability, and to the exclusion of certain types of claims. The relevant provisions will presently be discussed. A COMMON CASE WITH COMMON PITFALLS A number of the pitfalls into which the unwary can fall in connection with an accident to which the Act is applicable may be pointed out through the familiar means of a supposititious case.

On January 19, 1967, Jones sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the negligence of Smith, an employee of the Post Office Department; the accident involved a collision between the automobile of Jones and the privately-owned automobile of Smith. However, at the time of the accident,

Smith was operating his car within the scope of his government employment.

As a result of the accident, Jones suffered pain and mental anguish, and loss of earnings. He paid for or incurred expenses for medical treatment, and sustained a partial permanent disability. His car was demolished. On February 15, 1968, Jones sued Smith personally in the state court. Smith employed counsel and med an answer denying liability. 4

Thereafter, the Department of Justice certified that at the time of the accident Smith was an employee of the government and was acting within the scope of his employment. The United States Attorney thereupon removed the case to federal court; the government then moved that it be substituted as a party defendant and that Smith be dropped from the proceeding. A motion of Jones to remand the case to the state court on the basis of absence of diversity of citizenship was overruled, and the motion for substitution filed by the government was granted. The government then moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Jones had not exhausted his adminjstrative remedy by ming a claim for compensation with the Post Office Department. Neither Jones nor his attorney had ever heard of such a requirement. Jones asked that the case be held on the docket until a proper claim could be med. The Court held that the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies was jurisdictional and dismissed the complaint. Jones then med a claim with the Post Office Department but limited his demand to $3,500, the amount of his medical expenses and property damage. The claim was denied adminjstra tively . Jones immediately med a suit in federal court under the Act, naming the Post Office Department as a defendant only to learn that the Department is not a suable entity. At length he properly made the United States a defendant, and counsel thought that he was at last in a position to try the case to a jury on the merits. To the consternation of both Jones and his lawyer, Ule government moved that ti,e case be tried non-jury, as provided by the Act. The motion was granted, and the case was fmally tried to the Judge. At the conclusion of the trial, the Judge found as a fact that the government was liable and that Jones had sustained damage to the extent of $25,000. However, the Court felt constrained under the Act to limit the recovery to $3,500, the amount of the administrative claim. Judgment for that small sum was entered. Under his contract with Jones, the attorney was entitled to 33 1/3% of Jones' recovery. To his distress, however, he learned that under the Act his fee was limited to 25% of the recovery. It is seldom that all of the problems above outlined are encountered in the same case, but all of those problems, and others, have arisen in a number of separate cases in the Eastern District of Arkansas. JURISDICTION AND ADMINlSTRATIVE CLAIMS The Federal Tort Claims Act (originally enacted as Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Sta. 842), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), et seq., provides that a civil action may be med in federal district court against the United States for money damages for injury to, or loss of, property, or personal

In Federal Court injury or death caused by the negUgent or wrongful act or ontission of any employee of the federal government wlUle acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or ontission occurred. Judicial recourse is against the United States of America. An action will not lie against the governmental employee who negligently operated the vehicle while in the course of his employment. 28 U.S.C. 2679(b). See Beesley v. United States. 364 F. 2d 194 (10 Cir. 1966). Nor will an action lie against lhe federal agency for'wlUch the employee was specifically working at lhe time of the accident. See Welder v. United States of America Post Office, 179 F. Supp. 956 (E.D. Pa. 1959). Before a complaint may properly be med in federal court on a tort claim, the claimant must me a written claim with the offending agency. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), as amended by P.L. 89-506. Weavers v. U.s., 291 F. Supp. 856 (S. D. Tex. 1968). The claimant can easily obtain an appropriate form and may, and frequently does, undertake to fill it out himself. Being unlearned in the law and thinking primarily of out-of-pocket

largest Trust Department in South Arkansas

cost, he may limit IUs claim unduly with the effect to be indicated. Section 2675(b) of Title 28, U.S.C., as amended July 18, 1966 (pL 89-506), provides no action shaU be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the federal agency. except where the increased amount is based upon newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency, or upon aUegation and proof of intervening facts relating to the amount of the claim. In Ronald Millsap v. United States (unreported), med December 28, 1968, S. D. Iowa, the District Court ruled that within the meaning of Section 2675(b) the word "claim" includes all losses which a claimant may incur arising out of an accident. The Court struck aU damages in excess of the amount stated in the administrative claim as there was no showing that they were based on newly discovered evidence. If you are employed before the injured person mes a claim, you should prepare the claim and include all conventional personal injury items. If your client has med a defective claim, you should proceed to amend it at once. continued on page 20




-A-merican -A-rchivetJ -A-tJtJocialion INTERNATIONAL PROBATE RESEARCH







by lX. RobeFl 'N¥ight Dr. Wright has finally escaped his journalistic chores by the simple expedient of taking off to the University of Iowa to be a Visiting Professor of Law for the academk year beginning in September. Since I succeeded him as Director of Continuing Legal Education he felt that I should get started writing this column right away. Students at Fayetteville recently celebrated Law Day U.S.A. Activities started on Thursday, May I, 1969 when Will Mitchell gave a talk on the proposed Unification of the Arkansas Bar. Friday, May 2, prospective law students were given a tour of the facilities. That evening was a reception and banquet at the Fayetteville Country Club. Guest speaker at this event was Dean William D. Hawkland of the State University of New York at Buffalo. Activities culminated with the "Barristers Bar" which was held on Saturday night. The Little Rock Division celebrated Law Day with a talk given by Professor Fleming James of Yale Law School on Saturday, May 3, with a dinner following. In charge of arrangements in Little Rock was a joint faculty-student committee on which

BLACK BEAUTY corporate outfit

Professors Jerome Leavell and Jim B. Spears represented the faculty, and Mary Zack, Sammy Hilburn, Jack Heffington and Max Parrish represented the students. The Little Rock Division of the Law School graduated the nrst students to complete the requirements for the University of Arkansas law degree there. The four who graduated in January are Arthur A. Givens, Jr., William C. McArthur, E. Sheffield Nelson and John W. Raines. Six mare graduates are expected in June. Recently elected members of U,e Student Honor Council in the Little Rock Division are A. Leigh Tenney, chairman, Robert F. Morehead, Jim Roger Nash, James M. Simpson, Jr., Thomas M. Ferstl and Edward L. Cullum, Jr. The Little Rock division began the Spring Semester with an enrollment of 83 students. There were 27 mid year entrants which is a record number for mid year. The faculty has been quite active recently. Professor Robert A. LeOar added two new honors to his already long and impressive list. He received the "Award for Outstanding Research in Law and Government" presented by The Fellows of the American Bar

PARAGON Printing & Stationary Co.

has been printing



for over 35 years.


Po,t••• prepaid if rem;ltance i ••ent with order Give Corp. Name, SI.te. Year of Incorp., No. of Shart' Par V.lue if .ny••••••••••••••C.pit.l Siock S._•••••••••••• SEND FOR COMPLETE CATALOG



62 Whit. Stre.t. New York, N. Y. 10013


May we be or service to you? FR 5-1281 311 East Capitol Little Rock

Foundation. The award was presented during The Fellows' annual banquet in Chicago January 25. He also was elected Arkansas Man of the Year for 1968 in the annual contest run by the Arkansas Democrat. Bob will again conduct his Appellate Judges Seminars at New York University this coming July. TillS will mark the fourteenth consecutive year. Professor Ray Guzman in his capacity as Director of the Arkansas Prison Project was in New Orleans in March attending the National Defender Association Annual Project Conference which was planning in detail a National Defender Conference to be held in Washington on May 14-16. This conference, under the sponsorship of the Department of Justice and the American Bar Association, is expected to attract upwards of 1,000 participants. Professor James W. Murphy of the Little Rock Division was selected as a member of the AALS Round Table Council on Trial Advocacy at the annual meeting of the American Association of Law Schools wlllch was held in New Orleans. Jim also attended the PLI seminar on Trial Advocacy which was held in Las Vegas this past January. The lure of Las Vegas did not hold him long enough to prevent him from being elected Secretary of the New York University Summer Program for Law Teachers' Alumni Association and being designated Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Arkansas State Bar Association. Professor T. James McDonough was in the Windy City recently. Jim was in Chicago to attend a seminar on "Business in the Ghetto" which was put on by the Section on Corporations, Banking and Business of the American Bar Association on April 11-12. He has also recently finished a Faculty Comment for the Arkansas Law Review on The Truth In Lending Act of 1968. This is a subject of a greal deal of interest which will appear in an upcoming issue. Professor Frederic K. Spies recently appeared in a Mock Trial Symposium on "Variants In Medical Responsibility" continued on page IS

JURIS DICTUM by C. R. Huie Executive Secretary, Judicial Department

January 13, 1969 marked the culmination




two years of

research and work by the Young Lawyers Section of the Arkansas Bar Assocation when the Supreme Court adopted Uniform Rules for Circuit, Chancery, and Probate Courts. The original special commillee headed by Eugene S. Harris of Pine Bluff, son of Chief Justice Carleton Harris, prepared the original draft which was then submitted to the Executive Com-

mittee of the Arkansas Bar Association, which in turn submitted the draft to the State Judicial Council of Arkansas. Following several minor amendments,

the State Judicial Council, joined by the Arkansas

Bar Association, petitioned

the Supreme Court to adopt the rules for state路wide usc. Although a copy of the rules may be procured from the Clerk of the Supreme Court and may later be published by Bobbs-Merrill as a supplement to its replacement volume of the Arkansas Statutes, for the convenience of members of the Arkansas Bar, the rules are reproduced here_ UNIFORM RULES FOR CIRCUIT, CHANCERY, AND PROBATE COURTS RULE I FORM OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS a. Each paragraph of every motion or pleading shall be numbered and subparagraphs shall be alphabetically designated. b. The narne and address of the allorney filing a pleading shall be shown on the last page. A party who is not represented by allorney shall sign his pleading and state his address. c. Allorneys shall file with the Clerk one additional copy of all pleadings for the use of the Court. d. Within 10 days after notification by the Court or opposing counsel that a

pleading or motion has been filed which does not comply with Rule I(a), the same must be amended or it may be stricken.

e. Allorneys shall serve copies of all of their respective pleadings upon opposing counsel before or at the time of filing, and such papers must indicate the time and method of service. RULE 2 DEMURRERS, MOTIONS, OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS a. All demurrers and motions, including objections to interrogatories and requests for admissions, unless arising during the course of a trial or hearing, shall be in writing. b. All pleadings listed above shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the legal and factual reasons in support of the pleading, including citations relied upon by the pleader. c. If the respondent opposes a pleading, he shall file his response, including a brief supporting statement as in paragraph (b) above, within 10 days after service of the pleading upon


d. If the movant desires to reply he shall do so within 5 days after service of the response upon him. e. Unless a hearing is requested by counselor is ordered by the Court, a hearing will be deemed waived and the Court may act upon the matter without further notice five days after the time for reply has expired. f. Allorneys will be notified of action taken by the Court under this rule and, if appropriate, the Court will designate a certain number of days in which a party is to be given to plcad further. g. Failure on the part of an allorney to file briefs in accordance with (b) and (c) shall be grounds for the court's striking the pleading.

RULE 3 CONTENT OF ANSWERS AND REPLIES The right of a party to me a general denial is recognized, but attorneys are encouraged by the Court to file answers or replies admilling what is admitted and denying only the controverted facts and issues. RULE4 SETTING OF CASES a. Cases will be set at the request of any party after the issues have been joined and a reasonable time has elapsed; if the case has not been set at the request of the parties, the Court, on its own motion. may assign a trial date. Counsel are encouraged to coopera te in arriving at a trial date by agreement. b. As soon as a circuit court trial docket is set for any given date or dates, but no later than 15 days prior to the date of trial, the Clerk shall forthwith make copies of the same, showing the case number, the style, the attorneys and the date for which each case is set. Copies shall be furnished all attorneys of record. c. A court wishing to determine whether the parties in a civil case are willing to waive a jury trial may follow this procedure: Not less than 15 days before the trial date the court shall notify in writing aU interested attorneys (and any parties not represented by allorneys) that the case will be tried before the court, without a jury, unless a request for jury trial is made in writing within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. If no interested attorney or party requests a jury trial within 10 day period all parties shall be deemed to have waived a jury trial and the court may set the case for trial without a jury. A request for jury trial may be: (a) endorsed on a pleading; (b) in the form of a leller; (c) a separate instrument; or continued on page 35 7



11:30 A.M.

2:00 P."". General Assembly


The President Reports

J. Gaston Williamson

J. Gaston Williamson, President. . . . . . . . Presiding

Arkansas Bar Association

"The Proposed Code

Honorable Edward L. Wright,


of Professional Conduct"

Honorable Arthur Goldberg

. Address

President Elect, American

Bar Association

Former United States Ambassador to United Nations, Justice of

Conference Center

Co-sponsored by Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers and American Judicature Society.

Elizabeth M. Brooks. President

States, and United States Secretary of labor


Will S. Mitchell. Arkansas Member of Board of Directors, American Judicature Society . . . . .

Thursday Evening

6:00 P.M. ·





Honorable Glen R. Winters,

Editor of the Journal of the American Judicature Society

7:00 P.M. Banquet


Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers

the Supreme Court of the United

President's Reception


"The Unified Bar"

· . . Conference Center


2:00 P.M.

J. Gaston Williamson, President, Arkansas Bar Association

. . Presiding

. . . . . . . . Ballroom

General Assembly . . . Robert Shults, Chairman,

Rev. F. Willford Hobbie. 2nd Presbyterian Church, Little Rock


Honorable Edward K. Pritchard Noted After·dinner Speaker ..

· . . • . . . . Address

. . . . . . . . . Presiding

Honorable Arthur H. Dean

. "After Vietnam, What?"

Formerly Chairman, United

States Delegation to Nuclear

9:00 P.M. . . • . . . . Ballroom

Dance IBYOL)

Test Ban Negations; Chairman,

United States Delegation to 18 Nation Disarmament Conference


3:00 P.M.

8:00A.M. . . Monta!J.l Room

Past Presidents' Breakfast Harvard Alumni Breakfast


.Main Dining Room

10:00 A.M. General Assembly . . .

Executive Committee of Arkansas Bar Association

· . . • . . . . Ballroom

Business Meeting

. . . . .



Mr. Shults . . . . . . . . .. . Presiding Robert L. Jones, Jr. Report Of Resolution Committee . . Report of Reorganization of Bar Committee J. L. (Bex) Shaver Proposed Amendment to By-Laws Re Dues ..Philip E. Dixon Other Business

Election of Officers Robert L. Jones. Jr.• PresidentElect, Arkansas Bar Association

Adjournment Presiding

Panel Discussion Re: "legal Services for the Indigent"

5:00 P.M. Cocktail Party in Honor of J. Gaston Williamson


and Robert L. Jones. Jr. John D. Robb

Committee of American Bar Association Oscar Fendler . . . . .

leland F. Leatherman


Chairman, Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants

. Chairman, General Practice Section of American Bar Association

· . Chairman. Legal Aid Committee of Arkansas Bar Association

FRIDAY EVENING 6:30 P.M. 1st Annual BAR BAR·B-O . Majestic Lodge. Lake Hamilton (very informal)

SATURDAY MORNING 9:00A.M. The Morning After



At The Mid

J. Gaston W~liamson, President, Arkansas Bar Association; Edward L. Wright, President-Elect American Bar Association; Robert L. Jones, Jr., President-Elecl Arkansas Bar Association.

W~liam S. Mitchell, Past President, Arkansas Bar Association and one of lhe speakers on Proposed Re-Organizalion of the Bar.

J. L. "Bex" Shaver, Chainnan Re-Organization of the Bar Committee; Joseph M. Culp, President, Oklahoma Bar Association.


Year Meeting

Richard Williams, Chairman, Legal Education Council; Jack Young and John P. Gill, Co-Chairmen Mid-Year Meeting.

C. E. Ransick, Executive Director, Arkansas Bar Association and Lucian B. Bell, Chief Systems Engineering Management Office, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center.

S. G. Kolius and E. D. Vickery, speakers on Admiralty law and practice.


The Unified Bar-Integration Address of Campbell Thornal, Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida, which he planned on giving at the Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association this year-see the President's Report in this issue. I must confess that I have not always been an enthusiastic advocate of the unified bar. During the years prior to the 1949 court order integrating the bar of Florida, I was an active and sometimes vocal opponent. As I look at the matter in retrospect, my antagonistic attitude on unification would not be surprising. In 1950, I was equally opposed to adoption of our new civil rules which dispensed with the harsh rigidity of common law pleading. In 1951, the abolition of the diploma privilege resul ting in the requirement that everyone pass a post-graduate bar admissions examination appeared to me to impose a totally unnecessary hardship on graduates of Florida law colleges. Experience has converted me to the view that I was wrong in each instance. I cannot now imagine any aspects of the administration of justice more vital than: 1. the imposition of


high standards of admission to practice law a 2. stable, well regulated professional organization, under 3. a set of adjective rules beamed at arriving at the truth instead of featuring "tricks and treats" in the formulation of issues that affect the lives and well-being of your clients. After 14 years as a member of the Court which supervises all three of these areas of OUf professional work in Florida, I am convinced that a strong, well financed, inclusive bar is almost an essential if the Goddess of Justice is to reign efficiently and etIectively throughout each state jurisdiction. There may be exceptions to this broad observation. I feel, however, that the exceptions are rare and t1lat each state deserves the efforts and leadership of the total composite commitment of all of its lawyers-not simply those who are willing to "volunteer" their community services. Unification of the bar is relatively new as a form of professional organization. The unified bar, as you know, is a form of professional organization to which all lawyers are required to belong and pay reasonable dues in order to

practice in the particular state. The seed of the movement was transported to the United States in 1912. Herbert Harley, a co-founder and first executive director of the American Judicature Society, returned with the idea after a visit to Toronto, where he observed the structure of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The unified bar concept was formally suggested for the flfst time when Mr. Harley addressed the County Bar Association in Lincoln, ebraska. on December 18, 1914. It is an interesting coincidence that only eight years before, a native of Lincoln, Nebraska, Roscoe Pound, delivered his history-making address to the American Bar. It was not well received at the outset either. In time it became the pattern by which we sought to improve the administration of justice. In 1918, the Judicature Society published a suggested integrated bar act, and, in 1919, the Conference of Delegates of the American Bar Association appointed a study Committee on State Bar Organization. Tllis group, in 1920, recommended the creation of unified state bars. The flfSt state to take the

or Disintegration step was North Dakota in 192 1. The latest is the bar of New Hampshire, which on December 31, 1968, was integrated by Supreme Court decision for a three-year trial period. The bar is now unified in 30 states and 2 territories. Of tItis total 15 have been integrated by statute, 8 by statute and rule, 8 by court rule, and 1 by constitutional amendment. In recent years a number of courts, including my own, have taken the view that the highest court in the state has the ,cinherent power" to prescribe unifica-

tion as a method of legitimate judicial regulation of the profession. I might interpolate that in Florida the 1957 Judiciary Article of our Constitution expressly conveys to the Supreme Court specific power to: 1. adopt rules of practice and procedure for all courts; 2. exercise exclusive jurisdiction over ad-

mission to practice, and 3. supervise the discipline of persons admitted. The power is now cemented in our Constitution, although it was not so stipulated when the bar was ordered to be integrated in 1949. These three constitutional prescriptions combine with others to place the Supreme Court of Florida at the apex of the administra路 tion of justice with the active assistance of a well-operated organized bar. There are some broad aspects of bar unification which merit attention.

The legal profession has long been regarded as a significant segment of American society. With the increasing number of due process rights correlated with the requirements of assistance of

counsel, the law is approaching the status of a "professional public utility." I use the word "utility," of course, in

the sense of a service essential to the public welfare. From this perspective the unification of the total bar is merely a logical formal for the organization of the profession to enable it to serve the public with efficiency. It is reaDy the only effective method of supervising and regulating an essential service to which the public is entitled. Some years ago, when addressing a Conference of Law teachers, John Hervey lamented what appeared to him to be a decline of professionalism in the law. "We need," he said, "educated men of integrity who practice the law as a learned art in the spirit of public service." A well-run unified bar will tend to elevate rather than degrade the morals of the profession. Its programs

are constant reminders that the services of a dedicated lawyer are not to be found on the shelves of a supermarket or located in the want ads of the daily paper. I hasten to confess that the voluntary state bars are also blessed with many splendid ethical lawyers who have made vast contributions to upbuilding the profession. I simply make the point that in my view our objective to effectuate extensive improvements in

the ethical statute of the bar can best be attained when all lawyers are subjected to the same high standars through the facilities of an inclusive self-governing organization. To be accepted as a representative agency, the governing board of the unified bar should be equally apportioned among the various circuits or other trial court jurisdictions. This is simply the application of the "one-man one-vote" concept for the election of members to the board. It makes the governing board a truly representative body. If the members of a particular circuit become dissatisfied with their representative they can put him out of office in the next election. The composition of the board of governors becomes extremely important when thai group undertakes to speak for the bar on public issues involving potential disagreement among the general membership. The late Arthur Vanderbilt suggested that molding public opinion is one of the five major responsibilities of the modern lawyer. However, officials of the organized bar, as such, should be circumspect in selecting the issues on which they attempt to influence public opinion. They should limit their official expressions to matters in which the bar can be expected to have a special expertise. This matter of a governing board speaking for the profession is frequently urged as an objection to integration. In the first place, as previously mentioned, the board should be a representative agency, equitably apportioned and prepared to express lhe views of a majority of the lawyers represented. The board should scrupulously refrain from undertaking to express the "official position" of the bar on highly controversial, purely political matters. We recently were confronted with a petition of a group of lawyers who objected to endorsement of a proposed new state constitution by the board of governors. The Court did not disturb the board

action, but I would personally suggest that in matters of such far-reaching consequence a poll of all of the lawyers would be preferable as a guide to the official position of the bar. Subject to such reasonable restraints, there would appear to be no substantial reason why the organized lawyers of a state should be denied one of the historic roles of all lawyers-the honorable, forthright molding of public opinion. The unification of the bar imposes upon lawyers and judges a mutuality of responsibility for the total administration of justice. This responsibility must be discharged with appropriate ethical decorum and mutual respect. Unification establishes all of the lawyers of the state as "officers of the Court" in the truest sense. This interdependence between bench and bar should not lead to a lawyer's assumption that the bar can run the courts, any more than it should be permitted to produce a sort of judicial paternalism that encroaches on the independence of the bar. In this regard I do suggest that a unified, completely integrated bar has much better prospects of maintaining its independence and freedom of action than does a profession divided and segmented into various competitive splinter groups. At the same time enforcement of ethical standards, prevention of unauthorized practices, continuing legal education, and similar comprehensive objectives can best be accomplished by a total bar collaborating with a mutually responsive judiciary. Of major consequence, I think, is the establishment of an official bar agency that can maintain lines of communication with the judicial branch in matters affecting the general welfare of the bar or the administration of justice generally. Our Court designates a threejudge committee to serve as a liaison with the Florida Bar. Obviously, the committee is cautious regarding the subjects set for discussion. Never do we get into matters in litigation. In fact, the bar officials never seek a conference when we have an adversary bar matter pending consideration. Most often the lawyer officials mainly want to meet periodically to keep us current on the various activities of the organized bar. When the need is felt the lines of communication are available. Actually, we have found that the unified bar is the only complete and continued on page 16 13

President's Report continued from page 3 After untold hours spent in drafting and redrafting, the Reorganization Committee mailed to each member of the Association a proposed new Constitution and By-Laws with the earnest request that each member suggest such changes as he deemed wise. Numerous suggestions from members of the Association were received by mail and at a public hearing on April 12th. The Committee on Reorganization of the Bar has met to consider the suggested changes and is in the process of incorporating in a new draft of the Constitution and By.Laws those suggested changes which the full Committee approved. A copy of the revised Constitution and By.Laws will be mailed to each member of the Association prior to the annual meeting in June. The proposed new Constitution and By-Laws have been discussed at meetings of a number of the local Bar Associations. Included in this issue of the Arkansas Lawyer is a copy of the address of Judge Campbell Thornal, Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, on the subject "The Unified Bar-Integration or Disintegration," which address Judge Thornal had planned to deliver to the members of our Association at the luncheon meeting on Friday, June 6th, but will not be able to do so because he will not have recovered by then from recent surgery.

Instead, we are fortunate that Mr. Glenn R. Winters, Editor of the Journal of the American Judicature Society, has agreed to speak at the luncheon meeting on June 6th on the advantages of a unified bar. Thirty states (including ail of those surrounding Arkansas, except Tennessee) have unified bars. All such states have found that a unified bar has, among other advantages, enabled their organized bar to provide more and better services and educational opportunities to the practicing attorney, to secure wider interest in and participation among the lawyers in improving the administration of justice in their state, to better protect the public through standards of conduct and enforcement procedures uniformly applied to all lawyers and through more vigorous policing of unauthorized practice of law, and to enhance respect for and strengthen the voice of the legal profession through an organized bar representing all of the lawyers in the state. I urge the members of our

Association to vote at our annual meeting in June in favor of the filing of a petition in the Arkansas Supreme Court for an order of Unification of the Arkansas Bar. An interesting program for our annual meeting has been planned, a preview of which may be found in this issue. I am looking forward with pleasure to greeting each of you in Hot Springs on June 5-6, 1969.

to err is human...


every practicing attorney needs the protection of LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCEI

Your layman client depends completely on your judicious and competent legal advice. A client is not inclined to simply overlook a "human error," An act, error or omission on your part could prove costly.

THE PROTECTION YOU NEED•.• Profes.ional Liability policy covers you or any named in.ured for your own acts or the acts of a..ociates or employees for legal liability which may ari.e while performing profe•. sional services for your clients.









For Application or Quotation Contact



Little Rock,


Law School News continued from page 8 which was held on April 20, at the Statler-Hilton Hotel in Buffalo, New York. The Symposium, which was a part of the Geigy Symposia Series, consisted in part of a mock trial involving the question of "A Challenge of Medical Judgment." Another Arkansan appeared on the program with Fred, Ted Boswell of Little Rock appeared as one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff. Professor James W. Gallman recently had











appointed amicus curiae to argue the

stand taken by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Ewell vs. Paul which he argued in the United States Supreme Court on March 24. My predecessor as Journalist, Dr. Robert Wright, has, in between packing for his Iowa trip, been very active. Bob delivered a talk on "Is Fair Market Value Just and Adequate Compensation Under Eminent Domain" on Monday, April 21, to the annual Enginneering and Operation Division Conference of lhe Southeastern Electric Exchange at Clearwater, Florida. The Southeastern Electric Exchange consists of electric

what e.J. S. users know

companies in the South and Southeast.

The materials for Bob's new casebook were mailed to West Publishing Company around the first of May. The book, Beuscher and Wright, Cases and Materials on Land Use, will be published in lhe fall as a part of West's American Casebook Series. Professor Morton Gitelman was one

of the speakers at lhe Arkansas Bar Association Mid-Year Meeting on February 7-8. Mort spoke on the subject of "The American Law of Zoning-Arkansas Style." This year's Honors Day Senior is Festus Harlan Martin of Harrison. Festus who will graduate in June was top man grade wise for both semesters of the 1968-1969 academic year.



(and others don't) The thousands of attorneys who use Corpus Juris Secundum know if their point has been ruled upon. There's simply no doubt in their minds because, unlike other works,!h&r law encyclopedia

is based on


of the law, including all recent decisions which

are, of course, most important. If you aren't using C.J.S. now,

stop wondering about the case in point you can't find. Look into America's Great Law Encyclopedia, C.J.S.

WEST PUBLISHING CO. 50 Kenon Blvd, St. Paul, Minn. 55102





First Mortgage-Baptist Building Bonds


Little Rock, Arkansas

Phone FR 4-2481 15

UNIFIED BAR continued from page 13 comprehensive approach to total selfgovernment by all of the lawyers. To that end it is quite important that the dues be kept at a reasonable level. Lack of financial support has been one of the vital weaknesses of the so-called voluntary bars. Some few 3rc independently

wealthy. A much larger number, dependent on annual campaigns for membership dues, have not been able to

token the amount of compulsory dues should be inOuenced more by the average-income lawyer than by the amount that can be paid by the large firms. This bears on another point. The unified state bar should not be so all-pervasive and all-encompassing that it leaves no space for the voluntary local associations. There is still room for professional programs and projects peculiar to the county or circuit bar.

These local associations are valuable

finance extensive programs in areas such

colleagues in giving impetus to the state

as discipline, unauthorized practice, continuing legal education, legal forms

bar program at the local level. They really function as independent local colleagues of the unified state bar. In Florida, we have 59 active county and

and worksheets, standard jury instructions and on ad infinitum. By the same

Arkansas Eminent Domain Digest Compiled by the University of Arkansas for the ArkaJlSc'ls St.'lle Highway Commission.



Arkansas Statutes Annotated 21 Volume'S with Current Supplement $175.00 in the


81at<.' of Arknns.'ls.

associations. Perhaps our most dramatic

example of a dynamic local association is in Dade County where approximately 30 per cent of the total lawyer population resides and practices. There are now more lawyers practicing in this Greater Miami area than there were in the entire voluntary state association

when our bar was integrated less than 20 years ago. About two-thirds of the Florida Bar members in Dade County are members of the local voluntary association. Yet they maintain tremen-

dously active public relations, Americanism and legal aid programs, and have constructed




County Bar headquarters which houses their offices, local offices of the Florida Bar. and other lawyer-related activities.

The point is thai in our state, at least, locaJ voluntary associations thrive to an

extenl never thought possible before the bar of the state was unified. The two levels of bar organization complement

each other quite effectively, even though the local groups arc completely


circuit voluntary bar groups. We have a council of bar presidents, officially recognized by the by~aws of the Florida Bar. It has its own chairman and is composed of the presidents of all local



A COlllplete SOllrce tor Planning Estates ill A rkallsas. Planned exclusively for Arknnsas lawyers. it is based on the statut~, cnS<'S, regulations, and tax situations of the state. ThiS workbook scrv{'S as a guide to drafting a simp}(' will, testament..·uy planninK for benpfit of minor or aged, forms of property ownership, purposes and techniques of making- gifts. drafting partnership and business purchase agrc('menls and many other important topics. The handy loos('-)('af format makes this source a unique working tool-an inva.luable reference for the Arkansas lawyer.

11 Chapters


autonomous and independent. However, there is only one state-wide organization that represents the entire profession-

the integrated Florida Bar. I have been requested to supply some details of our Florida experience in the hope that it will be of service to the lawyers of other slates-both those which have unified and those which have not. It would be presumptuous for me to urge the acceptance of this type of professional association by the lawyers of other jurisdictions. I merely recommend it. Furthermore, we realize that many of you surpass us in your services to our profession and the

public. Within the rormat of the general policies I have discussed, 1 can brieny

43 Volumes.


found worthy of your interest. Unification did not come easy in "lorida; nor was it the spontaneous



eruption that sometimes appears suddenly out of the agonies of dissension or corruption. The Florida Bar came into


Contact Your Bobbs-Merrill Arkansas Representative, Mr. Joshua E. McHughes 4623 West 11 th Street Little Rock, Ark. 72204

~ '"


inform you of "The Florida Story" with hopeful anticipation that it will be





product of some sort of professional

being after long and arduous years of planning and persuading. The predecessor voluntary association, established in

1906, had served well within the limits of its capacity-but its capacity was


limited. As early




consideration was given to the possibili-


ties of integration. Finally. in 1937, a

petition to integrate was med with the Supreme Court and rejected. An effort to obtain a passage of an integra tion statute failed to pass the legislature in 1941. Finally, in 1949, a second petition was med with the Supreme Court. This one was granted and in March 1950, a rule formally integrating the bar was approved by the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction over the bar. The 19 years which have elapsed have produced a program of progress and public service which has far exceeded the ambitions of the most

advisory committee, chaired by a justice, which ultimately advises on rules matters submitted to it. This

aggressive advocates of unification.

Court eventually reviews the matter and approves, rejects or amends the bar

In numbers alone, of course, U,e lawyer population of Florida has increased tremendously. There were ap-

proximately 2,700 members of the old voluntary association in 1948. There are now approximately 10,750 members of the Florida Bar. The lawyer population of Florida is increasing at the rate of approximately 500 per year. We think the dues are reasonable, expecially in

consideration of the value received$37.50 per year. Dues concessions are extended only to members of the armed services






members of the Florida Bar, including judges and government employees, pay the full dues. To demonstrate in dramatic profLIc the tremendous expan-





proposals. Although the courts retain inherent power to administer discipline, the vast burden of this responsibility is placed upon the bar itselr. Over 600 lawyers serve in this program. They are the local grievance committees. bar counsel and referees. They investigate, prosecute.

make findings and ultimately recommend disciplinary action. The Supreme

judgment. Although the system is stricUy confidential until the judgment is med with the Court by the bar, the accused lawyer has an opportunity for a full public hearing in open court.

integrated bar the responsibility of detecling and prosecuting unauthorized practice offenses. In aU instances the bar is the prosecutor. In this program we

standard jury instructions; the economic

have insisted that our primary concern is lhe protection of the public against the llazards of obtaining legal advice from people not qualified to give it. In the exercise of these three

survey of the profession in Florida; an

Similarly, in unauthorized practice matters we have imposed upon the





might properly look at its budget. For the period of March I, 1948, to February 28, 1949, the total budge was $17,967.77. The budget for all purposes for July I, 1968, to June 30, 1969, is 5713,711. When converted into pro-

unauthorized practice-I

Because it comprises aU of the lawyers of U,e state, our Court has considered it appropriate to rely heavily upon the Florida Bar for its advice, assistance, and collaboration in three

tremendously important areas of judi路 cial administration: I. draning and





am satisfied

that we could not begin to carry on the



a court


possibly be accomplished except by an all-inclusive organization that can provide the manpower and the moneyThat in sum is the unified bar as we in Florida see it. Some of you, I know,

is not a separate entity or university affJ.1iated as in some states. Nine

full-time employees service the needs of this department. These include three lawyers. Through the voluntary services of contributing auUlOrs-Florida lawyers

lhink that unquestionably this is one of the finest programs of its kind to be found anywhere. It would not possibly be accomplished in such magnitude by a segmented, unorganized, disintegrated group of lawyers. The best part is that it is financed entirely by lawyers for


Bar Foundation and numerous other activities. which collectively could not

cooperative effort and total commitment of a unified bar. The Continuing Legal Education Department of the Florida Bar is an integral part of the headquarters stafr. It

rules committee of the bar. They arc advertised in lhe Bar Journal and hearings are held by appropriate subcommittees. Arter proposals clear the Board of

to the entire bar; legal aid; the Florida


and judges-authoritative practice man-

bar rules committee and

extensive pubUc relations program~ major medical group insurance available

extensive but effective programs which we conduct if it were not for the

recommending rules of practice and procedure; 2. investigation. prosecution and recommending disciplinary action; and 3. prosecution of unauthorized practice complaints. Except in emergency situations. suggested changes in rules of practice and procedure are initially submitted to the

Governors, they are then presented to the Court by petition which is heard by the full Court arter another Bar Journal

magnificient Bar Center Building which was completed in Tallahassee in May 1966, and dedicated in October of the same year. Visitors generally agree that this Williamsburg style structure is probably the most attractive building in the Capital. It has been paid for entirely by Florida lawyers who pledged 5685,000 for land acquisition and construction and furnislling. As of this month only $57,000 remains to be paid on the total cosl. It will be paid off in full this year-only Unee years after the bar assumed occupancy. I suggest that this type of achievement is a sign of a healthy, happy, ambitious, serviceminded bar organization. I am sorry that I cannot report in detail on the eleven issues of the Florida Bar Journal, including an annual directory; the 5,300 members who comprise four sections and pay for the privilege; the publication of legal forms and work sheets; the draning and publication of

sion of services rendered by the bar onc

grams and service projects these figures are even more meaningful.


Before pinpointing a summary of other activities I must invite you to our

uals are published. They retail for 512 to 535 each. The anticipated income from the program this year will probably reach S250,000. Tlus includes registration fees and sales of manuals.

Last year over half the members of the entire bar attended the courses. We

lawyers who manage and control every

aspect of the program.

represent great bar organizations with programs even more extensive than OUTS. Some of you. perhaps, are not

interested in programs of this magnitude. I suggest to you, however, if one wants to practice law Hin the grand manner" he owes it to himself and to

the public whom he serves to contribute a measure of his talents to the welfare and progress of his profession. I believe that tlus can be accomplished most effectively by the combined efforts of all of the lawyers of any particular state. To conclude, I call upon the late Arlhur Vanderbilt, as we so orten do:

"The organized bar has pragmatic virtue. In short, it works. It succeeds where the voluntary state bar association has either failed utterly or at best has fUllctioned ollly partically alld spasmodically. Where the bar is unified, it has a stallding with the Bench, the a,ief Execu tive, and Legislature and the public generally that it has nowhere else attained 17


Carman Virginia Holder

Little Rock

Charles G. Hollis

Little Rock

Paul Wm.

Hoover, Jr. Little Rock

Passing the Arkansas Bar Examinations is the culmination of years of work and study. Union National Bank is proud to congratulate these new attorneys who have chosen to practice Jaw in Arkansas. OUf

sincere best wishes go to all these young graduates. Jerry Bowen Senior Vice President and Senior Trust Officer

Richard Martin


Pence. Jr.

J. Pel ron Is

Little Rock


Thomas E. Robertson. Jr. Fort Smith

Joe Mark Rogers Tucker

Michael G. Rothman Hot Springs

Richard B. Schiro Little Rock

Michael E.Hom Fayetteville


H. Howell Fayetle"llle

John H. Jacobs Arlington, Virginia




H. Sanders Little Rock

Richard L. Slagle Hot Springs

Robert K. Smith, Jr. Fayetteville

Marlon J. Slarllng, Jr. Pine Blu!!

Robert G. 'Taylor, II Fort Smith

Bill J. Thomson Fayctle"llie

Handling Tort continued from page 5 The federal agency has six months in which to consider the claim and approve or disapprove it. If the agency does not make final disposition of the claim within six months, the claimant can treat the claim as denied and me an action against the United States of America in federal court. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), as amended July 18. 1966 (PW9-506). The claimant is required to commence or her action within six

months after the denial of the claim by the agency. 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), as amended July 18, 1966 (pL 89-506). FORM OF THE COMPLAINT AND PROCESS If the federal agency denies the administrative claim or after six months has elapsed from the date of the ming of the claim with the agency, then a suit should be instituted either in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred. 28 U.S.C. 1402(b). The foUowing is a suggested form of a complaint to be used in a Federal Tort Claims Act case involving an automobile collision where the negligency of a governmental employee is in issue.

COMPLAINT Comes the plaintiff, Tom Jones, and for his complaint against the defendant, United States of America, aUeges and states:

I. This action arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. I 346(b), 2671, et seq. 2. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Attached as Exhibit "A" is a letter from the United States Post Office Department denying administrative relief.

3. The plaintiff, Tom Jones, resides at 66 HoneybeU Lane, Star City, Lincoln County, Arkansas, within the jurisdiction of this court. 4. At approximately 6:15 a.m. on June 1,1968, plaintiff while operating a vehicle owned by him, stopped on State Highway No.1 t4 to make a left~land turn on to a county road known as County Line Road, located approximately 2 miles west of Star City, Arkansas, when John Smith, while delivering United States mail, negligently and wrongfully drove his car against the rear of plaintiffs vehicle. 5. At such time and place, John Smith was an employee of the United States Post Office Department, an agency of the United States of America, and was acting within the scope of his employment. 6. If the defendent were a private person, it would be liable to the plaintiff in accordance with the laws of Arkansas. 7. At the time of said accident, John Smith was guilty of negligence and carelessness in the operation of his vehicle in

the foUowing particulars, to-wit: 3.

Driving at an excessive ratc of speed under the

conditions then existing. b. Failure to keep a proper lookout. c. Failure to keep ltis vehicle under proper control. d. Following too closely. The aforementioned acts of negligence are contrary to the laws of the State of Arkansas. 8. As a result of said negligence and carelessness, as set out

above, plaintiff was seriously, painfully and permanently 20

injured in the following particulars, to-wit: 3. Severe sprain of the cervical and lumbar spine.

b. Fracture of the right elbow. c. Bruises, contusions, and abrasions over and about his

entire body. 9. At the time of the coUision, the plaintiff was a healthy and gainfully employed person. As a result of said collision, he has sustained injuries which have caused him to lose considerable time from his work and he will continue in the future to lose additional time from his employment. He has been caused to spend money for hospitalization, doctors, medical bills, drugs, and other kindred expenses and in the future will continue to spend additional money for such purposes. He has suffered constant bodily pain and mental anguish, and in the future will continue to suffer the same. The plaintiff will be damaged in the sum of Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in the sum of Twenty-five Thousand DoUars ($25,000.00). Counsel for Plaintiff Rule 4(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon the ming of the complaint in federal court, the Clerk of the court shall issue a summons and deliver it for service to the MarshaU or to a person specificaUy appointed to serve it. Rule 4(dX4) tllen provides that service shall be made upon the United States by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the U.S. Attorney for the district in which the action is brought, and by sending a copy of the summons and complaint, by registered or certified mail, to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D. C. Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides that the United States shall serve an answer witltin 60 days after the service upon the U. S. Attomey of the pleading in which the claim is asserted. However, it should be noted that Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure furtller provide that no judgment by default shall be entered al9'inst the United States unless the claimant establishes his claim or

riglll to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court. SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE ACT The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. I 346(b), et seq. has certain provisions which differ from the procedural requirements under sta te law in personal injury cases.

I. Trial by the Court. Section 2402 of Title 28, U.S.C., provides that any action against the United States under Section 1346(b) (Federal Tort Claims Act) shaU be tried by the Court without ajury. 2. Statute of Limitations. A tort clainl against the United States shaU be forever barred unless (I) it is presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after such claim accrues, or (2) unless action is begun within six m 0 nth s after the da te of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. A cause of action does not accrue under the Federal Tort

Claims Act until the injury is discovered, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have been discovered, and the time the cause of action accrues is determined by federal law. Kington v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 699 (D.C. Tenn. 1967), affirmed 396 F. 2d 9 (6th Cir. 1968).

3. Conduct not covered by the Act. The Tort Claims Act, under Section 2680(d), of Title 28, U.S.C., specifically excludes from coverage the foUowing types of conduct of governmental employees: a. Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, absue of process, libel, slander. rnisrepresenta tion, deceit, or interference with contract rights. b. Any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission afieHers or postal matter. c. Any claims or suits involving an admiralty jurisdiction against the United States. d. Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exerCise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a fe~eral agency or an employee of the government, whether or not the discretion be advised. Probably this exception has given the courts the most trouble. It is not within the purview of this article to discuss that problem, or indeed, other problems, in depth. It may probably be safely said, though, that the discretionary function exception is limited to exercises of executive discretion at the "policy level" rather than at the "operationalleve!." Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 373 F. 2d 227 (C.A. N.Y.1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 931. 4. Attorneys' Fees. As to claims accruing prior to January 18, 1967, if the judgment or compromise settlement of a suit under the Act exceeds $500, the attorneys' fees may not be more than 20% of the amount recovered; attorneys' fees in connection with administralive claims of $500 or more are limited to an amount not in excess of 10% of the recovery. 28 V.S.c. 2678. As to claims accruing after January 18, 1967, attorneys' fees for administrative claims may not exceed 20% of the agency award. Attorneys' fees for litigated claims may not exceed 25% of a Court award or settlement after ming of a complaint in court. 28 U.s.C. 2678, as amended July 18, 1966 (PL 89-506). Any attorney who demands or coUects a greater amount than the Act permits may be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned nol more than one year, or both. 28 U.S. C. 2678. With a 25% limitation on litigated cases, one can hardly afford a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for any length of time. CONCLUSION It is, or should be, evident that the successful prosecution of a lort claim against the United States requires the exercise of more than the ordinary care usually employed in a tort action against a private defendant. An attorney who is not accustomed to federal practice or to litigation involving federal agencies may do well to famiJarize himself in more detail with the various provisions of the Act prior to the initiation of a federal tort claim.

17==-==A REMINDER===1 II the course of yom daify business

conmers, with

o/lr advertisers, II/ease remember to note ollr appreciation 01 the/( COllfinl/my enthusiastic 1Jt11 ticipation III



Temporary Arkansas Bar Center-but with same address-314 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.


Complere Invesrmenr Service To Allorneys In The Issuance & Sate of Municipat Bonds School bonds; Imp r 0 v e men t Dist Bonds; County & Ci ty general 0 b Ii gat ion bonds; Water & Sewer revenue bonds; In d u s t ria I

bonds. In Estate AdminIstration Assistance Stock transfers for estates; stock and bond infon11atlon-past & present-prices, dividends, SplIts, etc. In Executions Of Buying & Selling Oraers Direct wires to all principal markets; fast & efficient executions of SlOck & bond ordersimmedIate payments.

HILL. CRAWFORD & LANFORD. INC. Investment Brokurs &. DelllelS Members



N,ltlOnil' Associ.nion Df SecuritIes DenIers Inc Inveslment S,lnkers ASSn of America Ar~ilnsas Ball~ers ASSn.

805 Bayle 8ldg.

Ph FR 4路8276 Lilllt' Rock





EXEClTflVE COMMITTEE The Executive Committee has been a working committee again this year. The Comittee has already met nine times. Several of the meetings have lasted most of a day. Individual members have spent many hours on the Committee's work outside of regular meetings. All members have been faithful in their attendance, and this has meant considerable travel for those who live outside of Little Rock. After the untimely death of LeRoy Gaston, the Committee faced Jhe task of hiring a new executive director. Many contacts were made to obtain applicants for this job. A number of excellent men did apply and these were interviewed at length by a selection committee. That

committee's first choice was Col. C. E. Ransick and his employment was authorized by the Executive Commit-

tec. We feel very fortunate in having Col. Ransick accept this position. He came to the Association in January of this year, and his presence should be a great asset to the Association for many

years to comc. The Executive Committee also au-

thorized a move by the Association's offices this year. This was necessary because of the sale by the Arkansas Bar Foundation of the building occupied by the Association for many years. The Foundation purchased the building immediately north of the Association's former quarters and the Association is now renting this newly acquired building from the Foundation. The move to this new location has been completed and our staff is now comfortably located in this new space. These quarters should be very satisfactory during the interim in which the Foundation is developing its plan for a permanent building. During this legislative year the Execu~ tive Committee endorsed and sponsored ten pieces of legislation. These were a new Jury Selection Act, the Inheritance Code, and act authorizing increases in the salaries of our Supreme Court and


trial judges, the Uniform Arbitration Act, an amendment to the Uniform Gift to Minors ACl, an act authorizing assignment of proceeds of group life insurance, the Uniform Anatomical Gifts Act, an act relating to the physician-patient privilege, an act re~ garding voluntary dismissal of lawsuits, and a bill creating a public defender system. The increases in judges' salaries were only $2400.00 for the Supreme Court justices and S 1200.00 for trail judges. This was not enough but this was a considerable accomplishment in this legisla Iive session. The Uniform Arbitration Act was amended so as to limit its application far mOre than the Executive Committee desired. evertheless, it was then passed in a restricted form. The Inheritance Code, the act regarding jury seleclion and the public defender bill were all the result of long, detailed work by special committees. The first two were passed in the form recommended by the Executive Committee. The public defender bill was not enacted into law. One of the main reasons for this was the price tag that went along with this proposed system. An appropriation of approximatley 5500,000.00 was required and this amount of money just could not be pried out of this legislature for this purpose at this time. Two acts which did not get voted on were those relating to the physicianpatient privilege and voluntary dismissals. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the amendment to the Uniform Gift to Minors Act, and the act authorizing assignment of proceeds of group life insurance were passed ,11 the form recommended by the Executive Cummittee. This means that the AssociJ~ion got desired legislation is seven 01 thc tel' areas in which it spoIUoo:"cd Lilb. Without making :1 detailed SUIYt:y i have concluded that the Assv'.:i:'lIion fared 3 littlc better than Govr,""r Rockefellcr.

Many members of the Association spent a lot of time working on passage of the Association's bills. Many lawyer members of the legislature were particularly cooperative this time. Without their help and guidance the Association's legislation could not have fared so well. Throughout the year the Executive Committee has given its continued support to unification of the Arkansas Bar. Most of the work on this has been done by the special Committee on Reorganization of the Bar. The Executive Committee continues to consider this as one of t.he most important matters facing the bar at this time. This year has seen the development of several sections within the Association. The Executive Committee has approved by~aws for sections on Taxation, Trusts and Estate Planning, Criminal Law, Savings and Loan Associations, and Family Law. In the future it is probable that other sections will be formed. These should be vehicles for increased activity relating to these particular areas of law. Prior to the general election in ovember, 1968, the Executive Committee went on record as being in favor of the holding of a constitutional convention. The Committee has continued its interest in the constitutionaJ convention, and. at the request of the Judiciary Sub-Committee of the Convention, it has now authorized the submission of a questionnaire to the members of the Association regarding the judiciary. This will be mailed to members in the immediate future. The area of legal aid and government involvemclll, in this continues to be a mattcr of prime concern to all lawyers. The Execul ive Committee has endorsed legal aid and the right of individuals to legal services. regardless of ability to pay. It is the position of the Executive Committee that the Association should be act ivc in the development of all legal Jid programs so that lawyers may continue to have a guiding influence in



the administration of these programs and thereby maintain professional standards and conduct in their administration. To further this the Executive Committee authorized the appointment of a permanent committee which will have the responsibility of maintaining liaison with any agency developing legal

aid programs so as to maximize the bar's participation in the formulation and implementation of such programs. At its April meeting the Executive Committee adopted a budget for 1969-70 in the total amount of $46,540.00. This is an increase of approximately $9,600.00 over this year's budget. Each item in the new budget was carefully considered and no increases were made which are not

essential. The increases just reflect rising costs in almost every area. At the same time the Committee recommended a change in the dues structure of the Association to provide that dues for members who have been practicing five years or less shall be $20.00 and dues for those who have been practicing more than five years will be $40.00. This proposed change will be voted on by the membership at the annual meeting in June. There is real diversi ty on the committee and varying views are well represented. I believe, however, that there is unity in one thing-that is a conscientious desire to promote the best interests of the bar and bench in this state and to promote the cause of justice for all of our citizens. The work of the Executive Committee this year has helped implement this desire. Robert Shults, Chairman SECRETARY路TREASURER In concluding three years as the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association, gratitude and appreciation is expressed to the officers and staff whose dedicated work has made my assignment much easier and more enjoyable. Our new Executive Director, Colonel C. E.

Ransick, has undertaken his position with interest and enthusiam and his leadership will guarantee continued growth and service by the Arkansas Bar

Association. The expanded activites and services of the Association, including the publication of the Arkansas Lawyer, have required additional effort on the part of all members and has increased the

annual expenditures. However, with additional members being added to our role each year, the Association has been operating without significant deficiency spending. The C. L. Cullum and Company, Certified Public Accountants, Cullum Building, 309 State Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, audited the accounts of the Association as of June 30, 1968, for fiscal year 1967-1968. By letter, dated September 9, 1968, E. L. Cullum and Company reported: Ufo our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and related statement of income and disbursements present fairly the fmancial position of the Arkansas Bar Association at June 30, 1968, and the results of its operation for the year then ended." The balance sheet showed current assets of $27,773.59 and fixed assets of $7,237.41, or total assets of $35,011.00. Current liabilities were shown as $1,829.66 and member's equity as $33,181.34. The Cullum Report is 0 n file in the office of the

for inspection by the membership. During the twelve month period from April 26, 1968 to date, our membership has increased from 1305 to 1390. This figure will be further increased by our newly admitted attorneys. This advance report has been prepared for publication in the May issue of the Arkansas Lawyer for early information of the membership prior to the Association's Annual Meeting in June 1969. Pursuant to Article VII of the By-Laws and before its presentation, the annual Secretary-Treasurer's Report for FY 1968-1969 will be examined and audited by the Auditing Committee. Philip E. Dixon, Secretary-Treasurer REPORT OF BAR ASSOCIA TION DELEGATE The Mid-Winter meeting of the American Bar Association was held on January 27th and 28th, 1969, in Chicago, lIIinois. This meeting was the first one where I represented the Arkansas Bar Association. The reputation and wide acquaintance of Edward L. Wright, our President-Elect Nominee, Herschel H. Friday, who formerly held the position that 1 now hold and who is now serving as a member of the Board of Governors, Jack C. Deacon, our State Delegate, and Oscar Fendler, Delegate from the General Practice Section, certainly made my first session much

Arkansas Bar Association for examina-

easier and I was received in a very warm

tion by any member or members so desiring. Appreciation is expressed to the Auditing Committee of the Association

and friendly manner because of their work in the House of Delegates. There were 101 items listed on the calender for reports or action by the House of Delegates. I would like' to mention in brief summary a few of the matters which have the widest interest. I. The Code of Professional Responsibility was delivered to each of the delegates. This is a preliminary draft promulgated by the committee which Edward L. Wright serves as chairman. Copies have now been sent to members continued on page 24 23

for its assistance and guidance in supervising over-all improvement of our accounting systems. Monthly Financial Statements are prepared by the Association's bookkeeper and are submitted at each regular meeting of the Executive Committee for approval. These statements, as approved, are also on file in the office of the Association and are available there


ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 23 of the judiciary and Bar Association officials throughout the state. Any member of the Association who would like to have a copy of the preliminary draft may secure one by writing the American Bar Association, 1155 East 60th Street, Chieogo, Ulinois 60637. The Code will be acted on at the annual meeting. 2. The House received a report of a Special Committee on Aututomobile Accident Reparations. The House by its action voted to uphold the traditional fault principles in automobile accident reparations. The Board of Governors,

prior to the Delegates' session, had voted to recommend that the Special Committee's report be referred back to committee for further study. There was a substitute motion which called for action at that time on the principle of the fault system and further consideration for a final report of the committee to be submitted thirty days prior to the annual meeting in Dallas. The substitute motion passed which indicates opposition to such plans as the KeetonO'Connell and American Insurance Association plans. The matter will be finally determined at the annual meeting. 3. Group Legal Services was an issue that received a substantial amount of discussion at the meeting. Because of a possible connict with the provisions of the proposed new Rules of Professional Conduct and other matters yet to be resolved, the Group Legal Services Committee was requested to consult with the Committee on Rules of

Professional Conduct and to report at Ihe annual meeting in August. 4. The Special Committee on Specialization's report was adopted and it was determined that the American Bar Association should not promulgate a national plan to regulate voluntary specialization at this time. However, it stated that it was appropriate for the states to experiment in this field, if they so desired since regulation of law practice rests primarily upon :tate aClion.

The annual meeting of the American Bar Association will be held in Dallas, Texas, on August II through 15. I feel quite strongly about my representation of the Arkansas Bar Association and its views. I solicit opinions frc. the members of our Association (. any matters which will be brought before the House of Delegates and I will appreciate hearing from you, if you have an opinion on any of these issues. 24

The program for the annual meeting appears to be outstanding and I hope that many of our members will be able to attend the Dallas meeting. Louis L. Ramsay, Jr. ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION The Arkansas Bar Foundation has taken a giant step forward toward culmination of a plan for the construction of a new Bar Center in the area between the Robinson Auditorium and the Territorial Capitol in Little Rock. The plan calls for a new building fronting on a public plaza and constructed over an underground parking facility. On December 27,1968, the Foundation sold the South half of the block which it owned on Markham Street to the Little Rock Housing Authority for $166,000.00. On the same day the Foundation purchased for $125,000.00 the Vess Cola Building located on the Northeast comer of the same block. The Housing Authority has agreed to sell the remainder of the North half of the block to the Foundation for $49,000.00. The effect of these transactions is that the Foundation has arranged for the exchange of the South half of the block for the North hair. Prior to the closing, the Housing Authority revised its master development plan so that the surface of the South half of the block which it was the acquire from the Bar Foundation would be dedicated to the public for a park or plaza. Underground rights will be conveyed to the Little Rock Trame Authority for the construction of a multi-level parking facility. The Bar Foundation has agreed to grant to the Trame Authority a 99-year lease underneath the North half of the block for the construction of parking facilities. In exchange for the lease, the Bar Foundation will be given six rent-free spaces in the parking facility. On October II, 1968, the City of Little Rock appropriated $13,000.00 for Ihe preparation of a preliminary design of the proposed underground parking garage. The garage will house approximately 475 automobiles and will be constructed arter Ihe City has completed plans for the issuance of bonds to provide funds. It is anticipated that construction will not begin until at least 1971. In the meantime, the Bar Foundation has renovated the office space in its newly acquired property (formerly the Vess Cola Building) at a cost of approximately $1,217,00, and this

space has been rented to the Arkansas Bar Association. This results in the providing of adequate office facilities to the Bar Association at a minimum expense during the period while fmal plans are being developed for the construction of the permanent Bar Center. The old Rose and American Legion buildings are presently being demolished by the Housing Authority. The Bar Foundation must not give immediate considera tion to the development of fmal plans for the construction of a building that will meet the long-term needs of the organized Bar and to develop ways and means for financing construction. At the present lime the Foundation has cash reserves of approJtimately $139,000.00. $49,000.00 of this sum is committed for the purchase of real property. The remaining $90,000.00 is obviously an inadequate sum to construct the Bar Cenler that is needed. The Foundation Board has recommended the appointment of a special committee to formulate final construction plans. When the size and design for the new building has been agreed upon, cost estimates will be obtained and the Foundation Board will be called upon to seek funds for the completion of the project. Phillip Carroll Chairman

AWARD OF MERIT ENTRY Due to the fact that this Committee will not be in a position to submit the entry of the Arkansas Bar Association for t~e Award of Merit by the American Bar Association until the annual convention of the Arkansas Bar Association is held on June 5-6, it is not possible to report any particular activity to date. However, it is the intention of this Committee to submit an entry for the Award of Merit on behalf of the Arkansas Bar Association by the deadline of June IS, 1969. The principal activity of the Arkansas Bar Association, to which approJtimately one-half of the entry will be devoted, is the reorganization or unification of the Arkansas Bar Association. The romajnder of the entry will be concerned with a summary of the Bar Association's activities which will include the Bar Foundation, legislation, work with the Arkansas Constitutional Convention and the meetings and seminars which have been held during the past year. Clajbourne W. Patty, Jr., Chairman


CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION The Conference of Local Bar Associations undertook several projects during

the current year, with varying degrees of success. The project most deligently pursued was that of arranging the advance publication of the bills which were introduced in the General Assembly by subject matter, author and action taken on the bills in their course through the legislative process. Arrangements were

made with the General Publishing Company, publishers of the Arkansas Legislative Digest, for providing tltis service to members of the Bar who would subscribe at a subscription charge

of $25.00 for the General Session. Letters were sent to all members of the Arkansas Bar Association urging their participation in this program and the Conference of Local Bar Associations

was quite pleased that this service was available at such a nominal cost. However, due to the ntinimal number of subscriptions which were returned, the publisher informed us that he would be unable to perform this service. While the project was not completed during this year, the Conference of Local Bar Associations feels that there is still a great deal of interest among the practicing attorneys for publication of the bills introduced in the General Assembly so that the Bar can keep abreast of what is taking place in the Legislature, and we are hopeful that this project will be revived in the forthcoming years. Another project of the Conference which has been relatively successful has been to work in conjunction with the

Council on Continuing Legal Education to provide speakers to local bar associations


subjects of current

interest. Several county bar associations have requested and are being furnished speakers on matters such as uninsured motorist insurance, Workmen's Com-

pensation and changes in the Probate law. Hopefully, this "grass roots" continuing legal education will be continued as the most practical and

effective manner of reaching the practicing attorney in Arkansas.

The Conference has worked closely with the Committee for Reorganization of the Bar in selecting a list of speakers to appear before local bar groups to explain the reasons for desirability of reorganization of the Bar. The vice-president of the Conference, Joe C. Boone, John A. Davis Ill, Thomas D. Ledbetter and Glenn W. Jones, Jr., have aU been most coopera-

tive in providing assistance and sugges-

tions for these projects. One of these men will succeed to the office of President of the Conference of Local Bar Associations and with such a select

field to choose from, there appears little doubt that the Conference of Local Bar Associations wiJI continue to provide a

of the Constitution of 1874 which ti,e Association may consider desirable. The Chairman and several members

of the present Comntittee are delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and it

will be desirable to appoint several new members to the Committee as replacements.

valuable service to the Bar of Arkansas in the future.

Richard H. Mays, President

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE The Constitutional Refonn Comntittee is a Special Committee of ti,e Association charged with the responsi-

bility of disseminating information on the need for extensive revision of the

Constitution of the State of Arkansas. The Committee's primary function, immediately following its creation, was

to provide means of informing the electorate of the State of the desirability of calling a Constitutional Convention. Several members of the Committee were active individually on the local level, and through local bar associations, in bringing to the attention

of the public and the need for a favorable vote on the question of a Constitutional Convention at the November 1968 General Election. The holding of the Constitutional Convention was approved by popular vote on November 5, 1968. The Constitutional Convention had its organizational meeting January 7-8, 1969, and will commence its delibera lions in

the late spring of 1969. It is the Committee's recommendation that it be continued, but with its responsibility redefined to include cooperation with the Constitutional Convention, and rendering of assistance to the Convention in any manner which the Conven-

tion might request. Specifically, it has been suggested that members of the Committee might offer to provide research assistance to the Constitutional Convention when the resources of its

staff are inadequate. The assistance to be rendered by this Committee of the Association should be in the nature of research and not in the nature of initiation or presentation of

proposals on behalf of the Association. It is desirable for the Executive Committee to consider the creation of

an additional committee which would be in a position to advise the Executive

Committee on proposed matters for recommendation of the Convention, and act as an advocate for any revision

I will be pleased to discuss the recommendations contained in this report with the Executive Committee at an appropriate time.

George E. Campbell Chairman

CRIME PREVENTION AND CONTROL According to the letter from our President, J. Gaston Williamson, on July 9, 1968 this comntittee was "charged with the responsibility of studying crime prevention and control problems and recommending programs of work

which the Arkansas Bar Association should undertake in tltis area." The creation of this committee and contemporaneous organization of the Section

of Criminal Law demonstra ted a concern of the Bar to respond to problems of a legal nature growing out of rioting and civil disorders that erupted in so many of our American cities in recent times, and which threaten to occur or recur in our own State. In our organizational meeting we

agreed that the American system of criminal justice had been of too little interest



organized Bar, was

overworked, underfinanced, and often misunderstood. There was unanimous

agreement that the Bar had a heavy and continuing responsibility in this important field which warranted the organization from time to time of task force committees, comparable to this comntittee and the organization of the Section of Crintinal Law. There was unanimous agreement that

substantive and procedural criminal law reform constituted an immediate need and



treatment as a

long-range project. We recommend a budget of $100,000 for litis project, that it be exoended over a period of approximately 3 years, and that research in depth be undertaken, first of procedural changes, and legislation incorporating the same as will be ready for submission to the 1971 General Assembly, and secondly of substantive changes, legislation for which will be ready for the 1973 General Assembly. Sources of funds are believed to include the Governor's Commission on Crime


Law Enforcement which shares continued on page 26 25

ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 25 funds supplied under a federal program. Various charitable foundations are likewise believed to be a source of funds. The committee also believes that some part of the national and local deterioration of respect for law can be traced to a misunderstanding of the role as well as decisions of the United States Supreme Court as it interprets constitutional guarantees which seem from time to time to impinge upon criminal law enforcement. Your committee recommends that the Bar make available to the news media, service clubs and civic groups, a clinical analysis of cases of the Supreme Court as may occasion misunderstanding, as these cases are decided, which reports we believe will tend to aid lay understanding of the processes of the law and circumvent the abuse of the Court and the attendant disrespect for the law which results. Study in depth of a number or problem areas was undertaken by six subcommittees. Their chairman and responsibilities were as follows: I. Richard B. Adkisson-Need, jf any, for changes in criminal sentencing

practices; 2. Judge Lawson Cloniger-Examination of misdemeanor problems, and the Court's appointment of counsel; 3. David A. Hodges-Review of parole and probation practices, by state and local authorities, plus executive clemency; 4. Albert Graves, Jr.-Study of criminal pre-trial discovery and trial procedure, and right of both state and the accused of a speedy trial; 5. Jerry Pinson-Study of local law enforcement and priority needs for improvement of problems; 6. H. Clay Robinson-Curfew problems. The reports of these subcommittees are attached and incorporated herein by this reference. They may be summarized as follows. Criminal Sentencing Practices. It was the majority position of this subcommittee that the trial judge was in the better position than the jury to impose an appropriate sentence, but that the jury, in the event of a guilty verdict, should hear proof as relates to mitigation or aggravation of the crime and propose a sentence, subject to review by the trial court and the Supreme Court on appeal, all as accords with present practice. The sentence of the jury should not be increased by the trial court, and the jury should have power to fmd the accused guilty but impose no


punishment if, in its judgment, this is warranted. No legislation was recommended. Misdemeanor Problems and Appointment of Counsel. The expansion of the rule of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) to require appointment or availability of counsel in misdemeanor cases beginning with the Hrst "critical state" of the criminal investigation warranted, in this subcommittee's judgment, recommendation of amendment of existing law as required to authorize the appointment of counsel and the award of reasonable fees for services in both adult and juvenile misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony cases, so that the accused's constitutional rights could be protected. As a practical matter the whole committee seemed persuaded that a public defender system must be added to our structure of criminal law so as to provide practical application of the Gideon v. Wainwright rationale. It is believed that the public defender should have a jurisdictional area responsibility coequal with that of the Prosecuting Attorney, and that he should be called into a case at its threshold. Parole and PrObation Practices. This subcommittee reported and your committee agreed that existing law, if followed, provided procedures and guidelines that appear to be adequate. Criminal Pre-Trial Discovery and Trial Procedure. Mutual discovery within the limits of the self-incrimination constitutional ban was recommended with the suggestion that federal criminal discovery rules be adopted. Speedy trial is desirable, both for the state as well as the accused, and the procedures for periodic reporting of the status of criminal cases should be observed in the view of the committee, so as to encourage trial courts with criminal jurisdiction to keep their dockets

current. Local Law Enforcement Problems. The study of bail problems and a poll of public offIcials with jurisdiction in this area constituted the major effort of this subcommittee. A review of constitutional and statutory guidelines for bail, as compared to bail practices, warranted the recommendation that a need for uniformity of practice and continued study of bail problems be undertaken by the Bar. Six questions were submitted to 218 public offIcials serving the State of Arkansas (circuit judges, prosecutors, municipal judges, sheriffs and the city chiefs of police), answers to which

rellected the following majority viewpoints: I. Bail bond laws and practices need not be changed; 2. A stop and frisk law is desirable; 3. Search and seizure legisla-

tion is needed; 4. Mutual discovery in criminal cases should be expanded within the limits of the self-incrimination ban; 5. Electronic surveillance practices and laws should be examined and modifIed as will permit appropriate and constitutional use; 6. And legislation is needed to keep pace with the changes in and growth of crime in Arkansas. Curfew Problems. This subcommittee concluded that it is doubtful if the Governor, or any other public offIcial, has the power to proclaim a curfew. Legislation was recommended which would recite the authority to proclaim a curfew, the public offIcer or offIcers who were so empowered, the territorial extent of the curfew, how long it would endure, and the disposition made of violators. Local experience confmns the need of this legislation. Some support was expressed for the view that a Governor, absent of statutory authority, has inherent power to proclaim the

curfew. Attendance at meetings of this committee and its subcommittees was good. Participation was enthusiastic, and the interest of members was apparent. William H. Bowen, Chairman the CRJMINAL LAW SECTION As of 4 April 1969, there were 140 members of our Section. Eighty-two members have expressed a willingness to

serve on committee. At the Mid-Winter Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association, the Section heard a report from the Chairman, drafted Committee Chairman, and had an open discussion regarding the purpose and direction of the Section. The drafted Chairmen are Edwin R. Bethune, Jr., for the Substantive Criminal Law Committee, Charles E. Scales for the Criminal Procedure Committee, and E. L. Holloway for the Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. At the meeting it was decided to hold our Hrst formal meeting on the morning of Thursday, June 5th, in conjunction with

the Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar

Council Members could be sent to the Chairman or any member of the Nominating Committee WELL IN ADVANCE of the June meeting. The Nominating Committee would meet prior to the Section meeting on 5 June

the then director of the Legal Aid Bureau of Pulaski County and a member of the Legislature on the Committee. It was hoped that the variety of background and geographical location would add to the effectiveness of the Committee. The members of the Committee were as follows: John P. Sizemore (Chmman), Burl C. Rotenberry, H. Clay Robinson, Theodore L. Lamb and Professor James Murphy of Little Rock; James A. Ross, Jr. of Monticello; Professor Rafael Guzman of Fayetteville; Bradley D. Jesson of Fort Smith; Bill H. Walmsley of Batesville; Julian D. Streett of Camden; Richard S. Arnold of Texarkana. Professor Murphy resigned from the Committee in October of 1968. The full Committee met on several occasions in both Little Rock and Hot Springs. Sub-<:ommittees also functioned. All members of the Committee were kept informed as the work progressed and were invited to make




At the meeting in June, Section officers will be elected and the new Chairman will appoint Comntittee Chairmen. It is also planned to have a speaker of national reputation to address us. This presents a problem. Bu t more on that later. This report is also in the nature of a plea for members to send in the names of prospective members of the Nomination Committee (one from each Judicial District). It would be most appropriate for the Section members of each Judicial District to decide on a nominee

and send in his name. Once the Nominating Committee is established, nominations for Section Officers and






submitted to the full membership later in the morning. It is expected the Committee Chajr-

man drafted at the Mid-Winter Meeting will delegate the task of studying and reporting on the several areas of interest

of each Committee, so that a comprehensive report may be made available to the full membership of the Arkansas Bar Association on June 5th or 6th. By-Laws of the Section have been approved by the Executive Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association. Finally, cooperative effort is needed,

particularly in connection with items 4 and 5.

Professor James W. Murphy Chajrrnan DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL INDIGENTS This Committee was initially selected by Bill Arnold when he was president of the



was continued

under the administration of Gaston Williamson. In the words of then President Arnold, the Committee was to concern itself with "developing a plan (and drafting appropriate legislation to implement it) to meet the legal and ethical demands upon the profession resulting from Court decisions requiring

representation of persons accused of crime." The makeup of the Committee was not completed until April of 1968. An effort was made to select people from urban and rural areas with varying experience in criminal law. For instance, there were two deputy prosecuting attorneys, two criminal law teachers,




throughout. There

were conferences with the

Legislative Council, the Executive Committee and other officers of the Association, members of the Legislature, judges, prosecuting attorneys and other interested persons. Additionally, the Chairmen traveled to Chicago to confer with officials of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. Needless to say, a great deal of time and effort were spent on this project. After the Committee completed a draft of a combination public defenderappointed counsel bill for introduction into the Legislature, the plan was approved by the Execu tive Committee of the Association by a substantial margin. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Arkansas House of Representatives, Representative Harry Colay, agreed to sponsor the bill. An explanation of the bill by the ABA Committee was made to the House Judiciary Committee and that Committee rendered a "do pass" recommendation, after suggesting some minor amend-

ments. Despite this, when the bill was brought up in the House it received only 29 votes, the principal voiced complajnt against it being the cost of implementation. The bill which was defeated established a five member Public Defender Commission.




empowered to formulate procedures for implementing a law which would establish a public defender panel of attorneys comprised of lawyers selected

by the Commission in cooperation with the Circuit Judges in all seventy-five counties. The bill also provided that the Commission conduct a study into the feasability of establishing full and/or part time public defenders in the various judicial districts. These defenders would be pajd by the state. The bill made the establishment of public defenders in the sixth, eleventh and second judicial districts mandatory but left the staffing and selection of "District Defenders" up to the Commission. (These three districts were the only ones in the state that experienced more than one thousand felony charges being med in the last year that statistics were available.) Also, the District Defender for the sixth district would, by the provisions of the proposed law, serve as State Defender. The State Defender, working with the Commission would coordinate the activities of the various lawyers on the public defender panel of attorneys and the District Defenders. Additionally, the proposed bill codified the rights of indigents accused of serious crimes with respect to representation. Any indigent who was accused of a felony or of a misdemeanor which carried with it the possibility of incarcera tion of six months or more was

entitled to an attorney under the provisions of the bill. There were also certain things that police officials were required to do with respect to notifying the accused indigents of their rights. Actually, these provisions of the proposed legislation more or less codified what the United States Supreme Court has already sajd to be the law. The bill provided penalities for those who sought and obtained counsel under this provision in instances when they were not entitled to it. Likewise, it

contajned provisions whereby the state was entitled to payment for services

rendered under this law if and when the indigent became able to pay. Of course, the bill set eligibility requirements for alleged indigents and stated certain things that must be considered by the Circuit Judges in de terming indigency. The estimated cost for implementing the plan the first year of operations was placed at $576,311. The second year that cost was expected to decrease to $551,876 since certain initial expenses incurred the first year would not be involved thereafter. The cost of the proposed legislation bill was cited by certain legislative opponents who spoke against it. As a result of the defeat of the flfst continued on page 28


ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 27 bill the Committee amended the bill to eli';'inate the compulsory District and State Defenders and transformed the bill into a totaDy appointtive counsel system whereby appointive would be paid by the counties. The Commission was retained and djrected to conduct a study regarding the establishment of a public defender system and report its findings to the next regular session of the legislature. This altered version was introducted as a Judiciary Committee bill. Efforts were made to have the bill called up for a vote by obtaining an administration letter. The administration supported the defeated bill and agreed to help with the altered version. However, because of the log jam of proposed legislation that existed in the closing weeks of the session, the chances of having the bill caDed up for a vote were dim. At this writing, the bill has not been caDed up. If the Committee is not able to get a vote on this second bill, efforts will be made to have it contained in the caU of any special scssion that might occur beforc the next regular session. The Committee deeply regrets that its efforts to establish a meaningful system for affording indigents with the representation to which they are entitled has thus far failed. It is strongly recommended that these efforts be renewed at cvery opportunity. It is felt, however, that without the whole-hearted support of the bench and bar there is little

chance of success. John P. Sizemore, Chairman

DESK BOOK During the Association's past year, the Desk Book Committee has concerned itself with a review of the material included in the Arkansas Desk Book for the purpose of detemlining which sections need to be revised and the extent to which new material should be added. This has been accomplished largely by each member of the Committee assuming responsibility for designated sections of the Desk Book. The Arkansas Desk Book has not been revised since its initial publication in 1961. Therefore, substantial revision is needed in some areas. These areas include, but arc not limited to, Business Corporations, Workmen's Compensation and Administration of Estates. Ir an ?cl now pending before Ihe Legislature is passed, substantial revision will also be required in the area of Dissent and Distribution.


It has been ascertained that a section covering the Arkansas Securities Act should be added to the Desk BElok and this material is now being prepared. Subject to further review, it is the belief of the committee that aD oO,er sections of the Desk Book will need only minor revision. if any. The following guidelines have been established by the committee: I. That changes not be made merely for the sake of change. 2. That only changes be made that are essential to update the material. 3. That minor changes be made in the form of a supplement page to be inserted behind the present topic material. 4. That entire pages or sections be revised and reprinted only where the new material is voluminous enough to warrant reprinting or such reprinting is required for clarity. Reviewing and updating the material, aU of wllich is approximately eight years old, is a substantial task, and the work will undoubtedly have to be completed by future committees. However, once the material is entirely up-te>-date, an active Desk Book Committee should be able to keep it revised on an annual basis without imposing an undue burden on any member of the committee.

Phillip E. ADen Chairman ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE Currently the Economics of Law Practice Committee is working on three projects: (I) a limited economic survey of Arkansas lawye,,; (2) an information retrieval system for use in Arkansas; and (3) the preparation of a suggested office manual for use by Arkansas attorneys. W. P. Hamilton, Jr. and Lynn Wade are serving as co-chairmen of the subcommittee to conduct a limited economic survey of Arkansas lawyers. Members of this committee are Finis Batchelor, Jr., John A. Davis, III, Bradley D. Jesson, Eugene L. Schiefner, Dennis Shackleford, and G. David Walker. W. Dane Clay and William M. Stocks constitute a subcommittee for the purpose of preparing an information retrieval system for use in Arkansas. A relatively new system has been adopted in Texas and other states within the last few years and should be adaptable for use in Arkansas. Claibourne Patty, Jr., and Thomas G. Graves constitute a subcommittee which is preparing a suggested office manual to be used by Arkansas attorneys.

The committee hopes to have at least two of lhe projects completed by the date of the annual meeting in June, 1969. James E. West, Chairman FAMILY LAW SECTION An organization of the section was held at the annual bar meeting at Hot Springs. Office" were elected. A constitution was adopted and med with the bar association Present work of the section consists of work on a domestic relations manual, for use in the courts of the state, by interested lawye" and Judges and attempt to sponsor the faD legal institute at Fayetteville. Meetings are being held to revise and publish a domestic relations manual in conjunc.tion with the Committee on Continuing Legal Education of the University School of Law. All interested attorneys and Judges in the state are invited to participate in this endeavor. Judge Richard Mobley, Chairman "FREE PRESS-FAIR TRIAL" At the March 23, 1968 meeting of the Executive Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association a special committee was appointed to meet the Arkansas Media Committee to discuss the Reardon Committee Report and attempt to aUeviate any problems that migllt be forthcoming in this connection. The membe"hip of this special committee is William S. Arnold, Chairman, J. Gaston Williamson, Winslow Dmmmond and Robert Shults. Herschel Friday, member of the American Bar House of Delegates, had reported to the Executive Committee on the recent report of the American Bar Association in connection with "Free Press-Fair Trial." Mr. Friday explained the recommendation of the Reardon Committee Report and explained that it provided four separate parts including (I) conduct of attorneys; (2) law enforcement officers; (3) judicial proceedings; and (4) contempt power. Mr. Friday had attended a meeting of the Arkansas Media Commitlee at the invitation of Mr. Bob McCord, Editor, Arkansas Democrat, and stated that the purpose of the Media Committee was to attempt to study O,e problems of the implementation of the Reardon Plan. Much progress has bcen made by joint meetings of the Arkansas Media Committee and this special committee toward a general agreement of principles

and a joint statement of guidelines for the law enforcement officers and for news media representatives in releasing information and reporting news of specific crimes. The members of the United States Judiciary have been furnished copies of the proposals for their consideration and recommendations.

Obviously, there are many points of view involved and which must be reconciled before ftnal agreement. However, progress todate has been marked by understanding and cooperation between the two committees and all parties have recognized that the rights to fair trial and of free press must Co-exisl with each other. The Bar representatives recognized that regulations for release of information by attorneys is necessary as a part of an overall program in this area and is an internal matter to be prescribed by the Bar. At its meeting April 12, 1969, the Executive Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association approved the extending of an invitation to the members of the Arkansas Media Committee to attend the Awards Luncheon and afternoon session of the Association's Annual Meeting on Thursday, June 5,1969. It is anticipated that Mr. Edward L. Wright, President-Elect of the American Bar Association, will discuss the attorney and the Bar in this connection in his speech, "The Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility." William S. Arnold, Chairman JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS Du ring the year the Judicial Nominations Committee had occasion to meet and make recommendations to the Governor on only one judicial vacancy. This was the vacancy in the Seventeenth Circuit created by the death of Judge W. J. Waggoner. The appointment made by the Governor was based upon the recommendations of the Committee. E. B. Dillon, Jr., Chairman JURISPRUDENCE AND LAW REFORM Prior to and during the course of the 1969 session of the General Assembly, this Committee has studied eight legislative proposals. Its recommendations with respect to each have been accepted by the Execu tive Committee of the Association. The Committee is grateful for this continual expression of confidence.

The Committee met in Little Rock

on November 22, 1968, primarily for the purpose of analyzing one aspect of a bill prepared by the Drivers License Division of the State Department of Revenues. Specifically. the Committee was asked to express its opinion as to the Department's desire to relieve judges of the power to revoke or suspend operater's licenses and to vest that authority exclusively with the Dep.rtment of Revenues. It was understood that recommendations by judges concerning suspension or revocation would be afforded serious consideration by the Department. The Committee was sharply divided on this issue and decided to withhold action pending a report on the merits of the proposal from the Municipal Judges Association and the Director of the Arkansas State Police. When each subsequently endorsed the Department's proposal in principle, this Committee concurred. The Association, however, assumed no responsibility for introduction of the Department's bill. I Six proposals received the ~fftrmative endorsement of the Committee and eventually went forward with Executive Committee approval to the Legislation Committee for introduction in the General Assembly. The Uniform Anatomical Gifts Act, which prescribes certain procedures for the disposition upon death of a body or certain organs was adopted early in the legislative session. The Uniform Arbitration Act also was enacted into law. The Association did, however, amend the uniform act to provide that it would not affect the right to trial by jury in a suit by an insured or beneficiary under any insurance policy or annuity contract. The Committee approved a proposal to amend the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act to enable the custodian of a minor to purchase insurance on the life of a minor or on the life of a person in which the minor has an insurable interest. This bill was requested by the Arkansas Life Underwriters Association. Approval was given to a bill drafted by G. David Walker of Jonesboro which would relax the physician-patient privilege. In effect, it would preclude a patient who has asserted a claim because of injury or disease from invoking the privilege with respect to physician's records which are relevant to the nature of the claim presented. Next, at the request of the Tax Section of the Association, the Committee endorsed a bill which would permit the assignment of rights of ownership under a group life insurance policy so as to remove the proceeds from the estate

of the insured for the federal estate tax purposes. Tllis proposal was dictated by a recent ruJing of the Internal Revenue Service which provides that the proceeds may be removed from the insured's estate by assignment of rights under the policy only if state law permits such an assignment. The last bill to receive Committee approval was designed to limit the right of a plaintiff to obtain a voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit. It was felt that existing law permitting a non-suit at any time prior to submission to the court or jury is capable of being abused. In essence, the proposal was designed to conform with existing procedures in the federal courts where a dimissal con not be had after the case is at issue except upon approval of the court. The Committee was, of course, cognizant of the fact that federal judges have been willing to grant dismissals in order to prevent injustice but, at the same time, to deny frivolous requests. It was felt that this particular proposal would tend to promote the more efficient administration of justice. Finally, one proposal was rejected by the Committee. This would have abolished the statutory terms of circuit courts. Although the members of the Committee unanimously favor abolition, nevertheless it was the consensus that existing law with respect to jury selection was so closely tied to calender terms that appropriate legislation would have to await legislative action on the jury selection bill prepared by Judge Charles W. Light's Committee. In conclusion, we wish to express our sincere thanks to Senator J. Ed Lightle, Jr., and to Representative Ray S. Smith, Jr., co-chairmen of the Legislation Committee, for their untiring efforts in behalf of the bills forwarded to them by the Executive Committee. Winslow Drummond, Chairman JURY SELECTION STUDY The Jury Selection Study Committee was appointed by Bar President Bill Arnold on April 24, 1968 to (I) determine whether changes should be made in our method of selection juror, and (2), if so, to propose legislation to effect such changes. By design or oversight, President Gaston Williamson upon assuming offIce continued the committee in operation. Work study sessions were held throughout the Spring and Summer months of 1968 in which it was decided almost from the start that a wholesale revision continued on page 30 29

ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 29 of our jury selection laws was desirable. The rest of our work dealt with the incorporation of that which we felt was desirable into legislative form. One of our accomplished goals was having the proposed legislation in "semi-final" form for submission to the Bar Association at an early date so that it could be circularized throughout the Bar membership for study and comment. This was done on August 28, 1968. The proposal was so circularized and the Bar, individually and through their local Associations, did respond with several valuable suggestions which, after study by the committee, were incorporated in the final draft of the

measure. Thercafter, the Executive Committee endorsed the proposal and adopted it as one of the Association's legislative goals. The General Assembly passed the Bill as introduced and it will become law January I, 1970. The committee believes that the new jury law under proper judicial administration will broaden the base for jury servicc and be constitutionally unobjectionable. The committee is grateful for the opportunHy to have been of service to the Association. Charles W. Light, Chairman LAW DAY The Law Day activities for the state were highlighted by the issuance of a proclamation by Governor RockefeDer proclaiming May I, 1969 as Law Day throughout the state. Local associations in the state were active and the local efforts covered the entire aTea of activities suggested by the American




within their activities were observances in churches, civic groups and schools.

Lawyers made appearances before these various lay groups. Local radio stations carried spot announcements.



torialized on the subject and published advertising both locally designed and as prepared by the American Bar Association.

The 1969 Law Day theme "Justice and Equality depend upon Law-and You!" was procla.imed on billboards and posters displayed in business establishments. Worthy of special mention is the activity of some of the local associations. Preceding Law Day the Craighead County lawyers gave a three niillt 30

instructional program for law enforcement officiaJs in the area on three consecutive Monday nights beginning April 14, concerning Arrests, Searches and Seizures; Confessions; and Investigation of Accidents. Jonesboro Mayor, Neil Stallings issued a proclamation. KAIT-TV ran spot announcements. The climax was a banquet at the Student Uniun at the Arkansas State University on the evening of May I. TI,e featured speaker was the Honorable John Fogleman, Associate Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. A Liberty BeD Award was presented to an outstanding civic leader who was selected by a committee of lay community leaders. At Blytheville a Proclamation was issued by Mayor Tom A. Little and the bar association attended dinner Thursday evening May I, at the Officers Gub at Blytheville Air Force Base. Hempstead County Bar Association conducted panel discussions at the four high schools in the surrounding area concerning the law and it's application to our youth. The Pulasld County Bar Association purchased the color TV mm spot announcement produced by the Ameri-

can Bar Association for each of the three commercial television stations in central Arkansas, KARK-TV, KATV and KTHV. The Pulaski County Bar Association wound up the Day with a dinner meeting at the Officers Club at Little Rock Air Force Base. Fayetteville Mayor Dr. Garland Milton, Jr. and Springdale Mayor Park Phillips, issued Proclamations. The Washington County Bar purchased the American Bar Association's mm spot for KGTO-TV. Part of the activity of the Washington County Bar was in co-operation with the Law School at Fayetteville. On May I, Will MitcheD gave an address on Unification of the Arkansas Bar. On May 2, the lawyers, faculty, students and wives attended a cocktail party and banquet. The featured speaker there was Dean Wm. D. HawkJin of the Law School of the State University of New York, Buffalo, New York. The University of Arkansas School of Law, Little Rock Division was honored by the presence of Fleming James, Professor, Yale School of Law, who made an address in the Old Supreme Court Room foDowed by a party for facul ty, students and guests. At Texarkana arrangements were made for presentation on television of a

speech by members of the Texarkana Bar. Also at Texarkana, law enforce-

ment officials were inclUded in a speakers bureau. At Newport, Mayor Scotty Elphingstone issue a proclamation in addition to the work through the local churches, civic groups and news media. The Union County Bar ASSOCiation deserves special mention for early activity in purcha'\ing a special post-

marldng die hub from the Post Office Department and securing its use by the EI Dorado Post Office during the entire month of April and on Law Day. The canceDation on all mail during this period of time bore the words "Law Day USA-Freedom Under the Law-, May I." Also the American Bar Association color fIlm was purchased for KTVE. Proclamations were issued by EI Dorado Mayor I. L. Pesses and Union County Judge Carlton Jerry. Closing out the activity was a noon luncheon on

May I with Honorable Oren Harris, United States District Judge, delivering an address on Law Day. In Garland County, an examination was given at the Hot Springs High School and a plaque was awarded the student with the highest grade. The presentation was at a banquet on the

evening of May I. The principal speaker on the occasion was Sterling Cockrill. At Pine Bluff a proclamation was issued by Mayor Austin Franks. A special effort was made with the clergy for recognition by the churches. Justice Fogleman was a guest speaker at Pine Bluff before May I, on the occasion of a Law Day oriented program. Guy Amsler, Jr., Chairman LEGAL AID It is assumed that the primary function of the Legal Aid Committee is to assess the need for legal aid throughout the state, and recommend possible methods of implementing the satisfaction of this need. As a practicality, this primary, or simplistic, approach is interwoven with

many complicating subsidiary factors, characterized by emotion, bias, preju-

dice and misunderstanding, which seem to divert attempts to come to grips with the basic problem. A majority of the Committee are fIrmly convinced that there is a need for legal aid, and that it is not being met at the present time. But all hastily emphasize that this is a personal view and not shared by the Bar in the areas in which they practice. What are some of the areas of confusion surrounding this subject? From discussions of the Committee and expressions of individual members, the

foDowing observations seem pertinent.

I. What is meant by legal aid? A considerable number of the mem-

bers of the Arkansas Bar seem to feel that the dispensing now and then of legal services to some indigent the particular lawyer has determined in his judgment to be worthy of such largess is legal aid, and all the legal aid necessary. There seems to be absent any concept of U,e right to legal services regardless of ability to pay. There also seems to be absem


understanding of the importance of organized legal aid and the absolute availability of it without regard to Ihe whim or mood of the dispenser. This exists despite the fact that the Bar has traditionally and historically provided in various places organized legal aid long before the establishment of the presert government sponsored

programs. So the concept should not be strange to the Bar. 2. Why government sponsored programs? A substantial number of the Committee is convinced that the reason we have activity in this field by OEO or HEW or others is the failure of the Bar to adeouatelv satisfv the need for legal aid. They are further convinced that the need will be fulfilled. The only question is to what extent the Bar is willing to

participate. Absent any participation the result might well be the taking over of this function by social workers


other laymen. Since the Bar seems unwilling to accept the total obligation of legal aid, the next best alternative is maximum

participation , innuence and support of such organized efforts as are established by government agencies to insure that the existing standards and ethics of the profession are always preserved. 3. Present Organized Programs (a) OEO There are two OEO funded programs in the state, Pulaski County and Jackson County. It is signiliciant that both of these programs are endorsed by a vast majority of the lawyers in those two counties.

The OEO programs have been en路 dorsed by the American Bar Association.

Basically the OEO program was established, operated and controlled by practicing lawyers who were not career employees of the government and who did not owe primary allegiance to any other segment of the bureaucracy. The OEO programs in Arkansas perform primarily services to individuals. Because of lack of funds it is

doubtfu) other such programs can be started. Because of such lack of funds, the trend in OEO is toward class action or precedent setting litigation that establishes principles beneficial to the pov-

with and endorsed by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association of the American Bar Association.

4. What Should We Do? (a) Education

erty community as a whole, or large segments of it. It is expected that the

The Committee almost unanimously felt the most immediate need is a program of education of the members

use of OEO fWlds will be channeled

of the Bar in the area of legal aid.

primarily toward this type service.

(b) HEW Pilot Project This project, for some reason, has incited an emotional reaction in St. Francis County akin to nuoridation of

water supplies or establishment of mental health clinics. This is a pilot project being undertaken only in Arkansas and no place else. It is experimental. It has a one year

life, initially, but may be extended for an additional two years. After that it ceases to exist unless funds for it are appropriated by the Arkansas Legislature. Its purpose is to obtain facts and statistics on the need for legal aid in rural areas. It is opera ted by five lawyers

It is recommended as a first step that

a panel on legal aid be included on the program of the Annual Meeting, and lhat the responsibility for thjs panel be given the Junior Bar section. The legal aid will want to assist in preparations.

It is further recommended that local bar associations be encouraged to have programs and speakers on this subject.

(b) The Bar cannot stick its collective head in the sand and ignore the subject. If they do, they may wake up one day with a socialized legal profession. It must participate in all phases, regardless of what government sponsorship or involvement exists.

It is therefore recommended that the

covering the entire state. Its director,

Executive Committee enunciate a posi-

Ivan SnuU" has appeared before some local Bar groups to explain it and has offered to appear before any willing to let him. It only applies to persons qualifying for welfare. It cannot be considered an organized legal aid program, but even if made permanent would only satisfy a segment of the legal aid need. It has no relation to the HEW legal

tive policy on this subject and that it appoint a small committee (3 or 4) with specific responsibility and authority to maintain constant liaison with the State Welfare Department, OEO, HEW or other pertinent agency to maximize the Bar's participation in all of these programs, bOUl in their formulation and implementation.

Leland F. Leatherman, Chairman

assistance under Social Security which is

described below. (c) HEW Social Security Under authority of the Social Security Amendments of 1967, HEW has announced a program to begin July I, 1969 whereby HEW will make available to State Welfare Departments 75% of the cost of furnishing legal assistance to public welfare recipients. The other 25% must be furnished by the State. These services can be purchased and need not be performed by government or department lawyers. Priority is given to purchasing these services from legal aid programs. The State Welfare Department is opposed to this HEW program because it does not want to provide matching funds. Insofar as the services would entail representing a welfare client on

claims against the Department, Arkansas Statutes 83-139 now prohibits paying of a fee to a lawyer. Legislation has been introduced in the present session to

repeal this. Until it is repealed it would constitute an impediment to this pro-

gram. This program has been coordinated

LEGAL EDUCATION COUNCIL During this 1968-69 year, the Legal Education Council has either planned or assisted in the planning of the following programs: I. ALI-ABA Program on Federal Taxation of Estates, Gifts and Trusts in Little Rock on July 26 and 27,1968. 2. Fall Legal Institute at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville on September 26-28, 1968, featuring the Justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court. 3. Tax Section Program on Corporate Finance held in Little Rock on December 6, 1968. 4. Second Arkansas Judicial Seminar in Little Rock on November 21-23, 1968. 5. Mid-Year Meeting of Arkansas Bar Association in LitUe Rock on February 7-'3, 1969. In addition to planning these programs, the Legal Education Council has sought to encourage the various local continued on page 32 31

ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 31 bar associations to promote their own

seminal'S with the assistance of the Legal Education CouncU. This concept is only now getting underway, but the Craighead County and Jeffe",on County Bar Associations have already taken advantage of the Legal Education CouncU's offer of technical assistance contained in a letter from the President of the Conference of Local Bars to each local bar association.

A topic has been chosen for the 1969 Fall Legal Institute in Fayetteville, and prospective speakers wm be contacted by June I. Consideration is now being given to a Seminar on legal drafting in Hot Springs in late June. Dates and speakers have not yet been determined. The Legal Education CouncU is also studying the American Bar Association's Proposed Model Rule Relative to Legal Assistance by Law Students. The recommendation of the Legal Education CouncU wm then be submitted to the Executive Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association which wm in turn make its posi tion known to tJle Arkansas Supreme Court.

II years or more Total membersAprU 12, 1969

77 I 1388

These are the comparative member-

ship totals for the past six years: May 19, 1964 1208 June 18,1965 1218 May 18,1966 1241 May 13, 1967 1282 June 6, 1968 1346 AprU 12, 1969 1388 OUI

committee continues to direct

special attention to recent law school graduates. Thirty-tJuee of the 1968-69 graduates are already members. This does not, of courn, include the group graduating in June of this year. Mrs. Barbara Ghormley, membership secretary, has again earned our "bouquet of thanks" for her efforts above and beyond the call of duty. James D. Storey, Chairman

1400 by convention time this year. Eighty-four new members have joined >ince June 6, 1968. We expect at least

MINERAL lAW SECTION First, I should like to report that the Bar Association and the Mineral Law Section had a very successful J 968 OU and Gas Institute in Hot Springs. Every seat was filled and the talks delivered were some of the best and infonnative ever presented at the au and Gas Institutes. We are looking forward to another fine OU and Gas Institute in Hot Springs in the month of Apru, 1969. Heading up the Institute this year are Mr. Ed Jones and Mr. Gerald Delung. Again the Section has requested the Arkansas au and Gas Commission to hold its regular quarterly hearings in Hot Springs

twenty more new members from the

;]1 the Majestic Hutet immediately prior

new group who passed the bar in March of this year. In addition, twenty of our members are deHnquent as of tlus time. A majority of tJ,ese members wm pay their dues when they register for the

to the OU and Gas Institute. Tluee years ago tJ,e Mineral Law Section decided to fonn a Committee to

Richard A. WUliams, Chairman MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE We are pleased to report tJlat our association


will exceed

convention in June.

The geographic compo>ition of the membership committee pennits a per-

sonal telephone call or visit with all non-members who are active, practicing attorneys. These personal contacts are in





forwarded by tJ,e committee and the staff of our association. It is recom-

mended that the committee be maintained at its increased size next year to

help in the effort for the unified bar. The total membership is composed of the following: Special members 82 12 Military members Out of state 57 Less than 5 years 297 6 through 10 yean; 165 32


as liaison between the mineral

lawye", and the general assembly. No action was taken on this unill the summer of 1968. The Committee wm hold its fITst meeting Apru 16, in the Majestic Hotel at Hot Springs, immediately following the adjournment of the quarterly hearings of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. The Committee wm review undesirable legislation and wm make suggestions for future legislation in the field of oil, gas, and other minerals. The lawyers on the Committee are Mr. Ben Core, Gerald De lung, and Robert W. Vater, of Fort Smith, Arkansas, Mr. Bm Wynne of EI Dorado, Arkansas, and Mr. Oliver M. Clegg, Mr. Edwin B. Keith and Mr. E. M. Ande",on of Magnolia, Arkansas, and State's Representative George Nowotny, Jr., (Geologist) who is the House Minority

Leader and a member or the Oil and Gas Committee and Revenue and Taxation Committee. It has been proposed that this Committee be made permanent until members either resign or others are appointed. Various members of the Committee and the Mineral Law Section, acting individually were successful in opposing House Bm No. 198 (Arrington) which dealt with forfeiture of mineral estates for failure to assess and pay taxes for five consecutive years or failure to develop within a ten-year period. We have been advised by Representative George Nowotny that the Bm would die in Committee. Robert W. Vater, Chairman

PRE lAW ADVlSERS COMMITTEE The purpose of this committee is to counsel with those interested in law as a career and to encourage selection of law as a career. The Committee attempts to furnish speake", for cim groups, pre law clubs, or about anyone interested in the general area of study and careers in law. The Committee is selected so that a committee member is available ncar every college in the state to work with tJ,e administrative college officials, clubs and groups, in explaining all of the aspects of law careers and law study. There was distributed to the Committee membe", during the year a pamphlet entitled '"Law Study and Practice," a pre law handbook of the Association of American law Schools and the Law School Admissions Test CouncU. This furnishes basic information to the study and practice of law and contains information concerning all accredited law schools. Necessamy, members of the Committee operate independently and no effort is made to compile statistics concerning the number of contacts or the precise activities of the members. However,

generally they were quite active. One member, however, devised a

noteworthy group undertaking. For Law Day 1969 he arranged a demonstration moot court trail utilizing law students at the University of Arkansas. This demonstration was presented at Conway, Arkansas, for pre law clubs, and othe", interested, of Hendrix and Stale College of Arkansas. This program was well received. The committee recommends that it continue on the same basis with more fOffilalized programs concerning law

study and practice. WhUe the Univer>ity

of Arkansas School of Law has operated at maximum capacity the past few years OUf complex society demands more legal talent and the demand for graduates still exceeds the supply. Thus the Committee aim of encouraging superior students to study law and practice the profession of law serves a vital need. James W. Gallman, Chairman PROBATE LAW During the year, the Committee on Probate Law prepared an Inheritance Code for the State of Arkansas. The Executive Committee of the Association considered the proposed Code and recommended its passage by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas. It was passed by both Houses, approved by the Governor, and became law as Act 303 of the Acts of Arkansas, 1969. The Inheritance Code consists mainly of a codification of the rules of descent

Monticello; and Robert R. Wright, Fayetteville. When this Committee was first formed in December of 1965, it was asked to consider general amendment of the Probate Code; the law of descent and distribution; and the law of dower, curtesy, and homestead. In the 1967 meeting of the General Assembly I a general amendment of the Probate Code, recommended by the Committee, became law. The Inheritance Code, recommended to the 1969 meeting of the General Assembly, has also become law. The attention of the Committee

should next be directed to the subjects of dower, curtesy and homestead. Meanwhile, several requests have been received by the Committee for study of further amendments to the Probate Code. Owen C. Pearce, Chairman

and distribution which are set out in

decisions of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. I t includes minor changes, principaUy of obsolete or impractical rules of law. The Inheritance Code represents a great deal of effort on the part of the Committee. Several meetings were held during the year at the Arkansas Bar Center. The main responsibility for drafting the Inheritance Code was assumed by the Honorable Harry E. Meek, Honorary Chairman of the Committee. All Committee members appreciate Mr. Meek's unusual abilities, experience, energy and perseverance employed by him in drafting and re-<lrafling the Inheritance Code until it was in a proper form to be recommended to the Executive Committee. Mr. Meek's service to tltis Committee, as well as to the bench, the bar, and the people of Arkansas, has been of such an extent and high quality that it probably will never be adequately recognized. The following are members of this Committee: Owen C. Pearce, Fort Smith, Chairman; Harry E. Meek, Little Rock, Honorary Chairman; Frank C. Bridges, Jr., Pine Bluff; Judge Thomas F. Butt, Fayetteville; Oliver Clegg, Magnolia; Ben Core, Fort Smith; Julian Fogleman, West Memphis; Richard B. McCulloch, Forrest City; DuVal L. Purkins, Lake Village; Judge Murray Reed, Little Rock; Charles B. Roscopf, Helena; A. G. Sanderson, Jr., Texarkana; Leonard L. Scott, Little Rock; James B. Sharp, Brinkley; H. Franklin Waters, Springdale; Judge Royce Weisenberger, Hope; Adrian Williamson,

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND GRIEVANCE There have been numerous complaints forwarded to the Bar Association during the past year from clients who were dissatisfied with the performance of their respective attorneys for one reason






grievances, the Committee feels, are a result of a lack of communication between the lawyer and his client or procrastination on the part of the attorneys. Most of such grievances have been handled througll correspondence by the Committee. The Committee has issued several opinions t1uougilout the year touching on matters of interest to the various members of the Bar Association regarding professional ethjcs. There have been serious allega tions of embezzlement, ethical violations and other misconduct whjch have been referred to the Bar Rules Committee. It is the policy of the Professional Ethics and Grievance Conunittee to refer matters which might result in the disbarment of an attorney to the Bar Rules Committee of the Supreme Court in order to eliminate duplication of the investigatory process and hearings, if necessary. This Committee is limited in the action that it can take in any of the investigations wherein a violation of ethics or improper conduct is discovered. This Committee can only recommend that a member be suspended or removed from the membership of the Arkansas Bar Association by the Executive Committee. In addition to the above, the Committee issues

opinions as to ethics to members of the Bar Association. This Committee has worked with the Bar Rules Committee in order to develop a Clients' Security Fund for the Bar of Arkansas. The Supreme Court was petitioned to authorize the Bar Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to make an assessment against the members of the Bar to create this fund. Later in the year it was decided that this petition should be held in abeyance and no action taken thereon until after the unification of the Bar was voted on, and, if the unification of the Bar is accomplished, lhe matter would be much simplier to handle. Frank Warden, Jr., was appointed Chairman of the Committee at the beginning of the year but resigned in December at which time Joe D. Woodward was appointed Chairman to fill the unexpired tenm of Frank Warden, Jr., James Wallace of North Little Rock, Arkansas, was appointed by President J. Gaston Williamson to fill the unexpired term as a member of the Committee and has assumed that position. A great deal of difficulty has been encountered in the transition of Chairmen due to the sudden departure of Chairman, Frank Warden, Jr., but this seems to have been straightened out now and the Committee is again functioning smoothly. Joe D. Woodward, Chairman REPORT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE The name of the committee was changed this year from Public Informalion to Public Relations to reflect the scope and character of the committee's work. During the past two years this committee coordinated with the Pulaski County Bar Association in providing programs for an early-morning television show on Station KTHV in Little Rock. Among the topics presented were highway safety legislation, law as a profession, income tax, legal aid, Hability of property owners, problems of probate, psychiatry and the law, annual legal checkup, juvenile delinquency, women lawyers, the work of the Supreme Court, duties of a juror, the work of Chancery Courts, the work of Municipal Courts, the State Judicial Council, the work of Juvenile Court, county judges, prosecuting attorneys, the County Clerks' Association, the Circuit Clerk's Association, adoption continued on page 34


ANNUAL REPORTS continued from page 33 procedure, legal problems in buying a home, and protection against illegal search and seizure. Two of the most popular subjects were those concerning the youth jury, whjch were presented by John P. Gill and John Plegge, and libel and slander hy Phillip Carroll. This committee has continued to

make available to the public pamphlets on the foUowing subjects: wills; automobile accidents; purchases of real estate; marriage; and individual rights if sued, arrested, or injured. There is also

available for public distribution a pamphlet entitled "Meet Your Lawyer." Committee member James Guy Tucker has worked with the Arkansas Bar Ccnter in the preparation of press releases on bar activities for distribution to newspapers in Arkansas. Philip S. Anderson, Chairman


Court that ti,e Association's brief be made available to every licensed allorney on request; that every licensed attorney be permitted to me a brief or wrillen statement on the question of urufication or any part of the basic documents


been set up for your Association, an

officer of the Association is urged to write or caU one of the following:

Our group has instigated a progmm of a Scholarship to the University of Arkansas School of Law, in the amount of $250.00. Such Scholarship to be given to the writer of the best article on a subject pertaining to Savings and Loan Law in the State of Arkansas, the winner to be selected by a Committee under the direction of the Dean and to appear as a part of the program' of our Section in the June meeting. Our Section has furtller performed services to the Arkansas Savings and Loan League in assisting in the drafting of various pieces of Legislation of interest to the Savings and Loan Industry. Vernon J. lUng, Cha;rman

The comntittee's goal is that every

stock issues, insurance company loans,

position to cast a fully informed vote at Hot Springs.

and bank loans. A special comntittee under the chailmanship of Glenn W. Jones, Jr. drafted and submHted to the Legislature a statute permitting an assignment of ownership of group life insumnce

W. S. Mitchell 1200 Boyle Building Little Rock, Arkansas

tion and By-Laws of The Arkansas Bar

Colonel C. E. Ransick

Association has also been distributed to

Arkansas Bar Center

the membership. At the request of the Committee,

314 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas

members of the association have submitted comments and suggestions for

J. L. "Bex" Shaver. Chairman

membership of the association at an

early date. As thus revised the basic documents arc in the form which will be recommended to the committee. If such

attorney licensed to practice in Arkan-

installment note, copies of wh.ich were made available to all Savings and Loan AssociaHons.

member of the Association be in a

J. L. Bex Shaver Attorney at Law Wynne, Arkansas

principal provisions of these documents with their counterparts in the Constitu-

a Petition is med it will be recommended to the Court that a copy of the petition be mailed by the clerk to each

Association, our Sectjon had developed

a suggested standard master form mortgage, with short form mortgage and

SECTION OF TAXATION TRUST AND ESTATE PLANNING During the 1968-1969 year, the Section of Taxation Trust and Estate PJannjng presented a seminar on Corporate Finance and drafted proposed legislation to permit the assjgnment of group life insurance. On December 6, 1968, the Continuing Legal Education Committee of the Section under the chailmanship of Oyron M. Eiseman, Jr., presented the seminar on corporate fmance in Little Rock before an audience of 50 perSOIlS. The speakers covered the entire range of fmancing, including SmaU Business Administration loans, public

Arkansas Bar. A study comparing the

of several sections of the By-Laws. These revisions will be distributed to the


the reorganaation proposal could be expla;nted. Several such meetings have been held. If such a program has not yet

Incorporation and By-Laws for a new organization to be known as The

the committee resulting in the revisions


associations in arranging meetings where

The Reorganization of The Bar CommHtee has prepared and distributed to aU members of the Arkansas Bar Association a proposed Articles of

changes in the Articles and By-Laws. These have been carefully considered by


argument before the Court; and that the Supreme Court Clerk be directed by the Court to mail a baUot to every attorney licensed to practice in Arkansas on the question of unilication of The Bar. During the June 1969 Convention of The Arkansas Bar Association-June 5-6, 1969-a vote will be taken to determme whether or not a Petition should be med with the Supreme Court of Arkansas asting for unillcation of The Bar and approval of the basic documents of the new orgarnzation. The Reorganjzation Committee is most appreciative of the splendid cooperation of the officers and members of the district and county bar

Loan Business and particularly a stan-

dard form of note and mortgage to be used by aU Associations. By the mjd-winter meeting of the Bar

SA VINGS AND LOAN SECTION On September 20th, our Section met in





Savings and Loan League, and furnished them a panel of Attorneys to discuss

sas and that a copy of each of the proposed basic documents of The Arkansas Bar be mailed to each licensed attorney other than members of the

various legal questions pertaining to Savings and Loan Business. This panel

Arkansas Bar Association who will have received them prior to the convention. It will also be recommended to the 34

afternoon. The members of our Section met in the morning and discussed legal matters pertaining to the Savings and

fiUed the entire program for that entire

policies so to remove the proceeds from

the estate of the insured for Federal estate tax purposes under Rev. Rul. 68-334. Richard A. Williams, Charrman UNAUTHORJZED PRACTICE OF LAW The lJPL Committee is a "w-dtch dog committee" which functions when reports of unauthorized practice of law are made to the Association. Tltis year

has been relatively quiet. Your committee has not found it necessary to resort to the courts in order to prevent the unauthorized practice of the law by any person or persons, except in one instance where litigation is now pending to enjoin an individual from collecting funds by holding himself out as an attorney and threatening resort to the courts in aid of the collection. Other complaints which have been received by the committee have been promptly handled by either personal conferences or cease and desist letters. We have had no repetitive violations. As has been the experience in the past, some persons are still attempting to sell will forms by mail with instructions accompanying the form as to how to prepare a will. These sporadic and intermitten violations are usually accomplished by non-resident individuals who run newspaper ads, then rent post office boxes in various places in the state for a short period of time and then move on like a "floating crap game." Your committee has found that their effect is minimal, however, through cooperation of members of the bar in the particular area, the violations are halted without difficulty. Your committee urges each membel of the Association to report invasions into the field of the practice of law to the Executive Director or to any members of the UPL Committee without delay. Eugene R. Warren, Chairman

JURIS D1CTlM continued from page 7 Cd) in any written form. Such request may be endorsed on the complaint or med at any time before termination of the above stated 10 day period, and such request must be served on aU interested attorneys or parties not represented by attorneys. If a party has previously requested a jury trial, the provisions of this rule shall not be applicable and such party will not be deemed to have waived a jury trial unless such party mes and serves a specific wrinen waiver of jury trial. RULE S SETTLEMENTS OR CONTINUANCES a. As a matter of good administration

and out of consideration for the needs of attorneys, their clients and Witnesses, and in the public interest, the Court makes every endeavor to set cases down for trial on a day certain. The bar is well

aware of the expense and embarrassment often caused by last-minute settlements or continuances, and therefore, the Court and the Clerk shall be notified promptly if a case is settled after it has been set for trial for a day certain. b. After a case has been set for any purpose no continuance will be granted except for good cause shown. c. Where continuances are sought by agreement, the attorneys shall consult with the Court and make a full and open disclosure of the reasons for such continuance. Thereafter, the Court may

Majectic Lodge and its beautiful grounds on the shore of Lake Hamilton-the scene of the lst Annual Bar Bar-B-Q.

in its discretion grant or refuse a continuance. RULE6 APPEALS FROM WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION a. When the Circuit Coun learns that an appeal from ti,e Workmen's Compensation Commission is on the docket the Court will determine if all parties to the appeal are represented by an attorney of record. If a party is not represented by an attorney of record, or if the Court thinks it otherwise desirable, the matter will be set for oral hearing. b. If all parties to the appeal are represented by an anorney of record the Court will request advise from said attorneys as to whether tlley desire the matter to be decided upon the record and any briefs in the me, or whether they wish to be heard orally or by briefs, or both; but if no response is had from such attorneys within 10 days ti,e Court will proceed to study the case and announce a decision. RULE 7 COURTROOM PROCEDURE a. Attorneys having cases set for trial should be in the courtroom at least fifteen minutes before the court convenes. b. Objection will be sustained to the cross-examination of a witness by more than one attorney of a party, unless there is special reason for ruling otherwise. c. The Court will not recognize any agreement or stipulation between counsel, if they differ as to the terms of the agreement or stipulation, unless it has been reduced to writing, signed by ti,e parties or their attorneys and med with the papers in the case or unless it has been dicta ted to the offical court reporter and made a part of the trial record. d. It shall be the duty of counsel for Plaintiff or the party calling up the case to assure delivery of the me to the Court prior to the hearing or trial. This rule applies in both contested and uncontested cases. e. All exhibits offered during trial must be identified appropriately by number by the counsel offering same, prior to submission to the Court. Counsel should have exhibits ready for introduction at the start of the trial. RULE 8 EMPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL When additional counsel is employed to represent any party in a case, said counsel shall immediately cause the Clerk to enter his name as an attorney of record in the case and shall also continued on page 36 35

JURIS DICTIM continued from page 35 immediately notify the Court and opposing counsel thai he has been employed in the case.


Half your case IS



No attorney shall withdlaw his appearance in any cause in this Court except by leave of U,e Court after notice served by him on his client. If an attorney is permitted to withdraw, he shall so notify opposing counsel.


and iI




I n aU civil cases wherein there has been no acl ion of record during the 12 months just past, the Court shall cause notice to be mailed 10 lhe attorneys of record that such case wiJI be dismissed by Ihe Court without prejudice for want of prosecution unless on a day set for that purpose application is made to the Court and good cause shown why it should be continued as a pending case. If such application is not made or good cause is not shown, the Courl may dismiss each case without prejudice.

RULE II COURTROOM DECORUM a. It is preferred that all remarks addressed 10 the Court during any session be made from the counsel table

or at a reasonable distance from the Bench. This also holds true as to presenting ex parte and uncontested matters. The practice of holding extended whispered conferences with the trial judge creates an unfavorable and

suspicious reaction on the part of other attorneys. litigants and others in attend路


ance. If an attorney, or the judge feels that a matter should be discussed outside lhe hearing of the jury or others in attendance, they shaU so state and a conference in chambers shall be in

order. b. The audience shall be subject to

the same rules pertaining to courtroom annoyances as are lawyers and court

Charles I. Rea, Owner THE LAWYERS' PRINTER

officials. Any noise or display which detracts from the business of the Court shall be immediately but politely abated by the bailiff. RULE 12


$aIeM~i"eJ A ~ flIlt 793-7322 36

The foregoing rules may be supplemented by local chancery and circuit courts provided such supplemental rules do not connict lherewith, and further provided that such supplemental rules shall not become effective until a copy lhereof shaU have been filed with U,e Clerk of lhe Supreme Court.


Services Directory

HEART OF THE OZARKS REALTY COMPANY Col. C. C. King, Owner Mrs. Fanta L. Mackie, Abstractor Issuing Agent for Chicago Title Insurance Co. ABSTRACTS-REAL ESTATE-INSURANCE Member of American and Arkansas Land Title Asso. Area Code SOl-Telephone, 253-8612 26 Spring Street Eureka Springs, Ark. 72632


Ben. H. White M. J. White



ABSTRACTS-TITLE INSURANCEESCROWS-REAL ESTATE Member of American and Arkansas Land Title Asso. Phone, JA 3·3611 Newport 520 Third Street


Court Reporter

NATIONAL ABSTRACT COMPANY Lois M. Howard, Owner TITLE INSURANCE ABSTRACTS ESCROWS Member of American and Arkansas Land Title Asso. Representing: Lawyers Title I nsurance Corporation 209 Exchange St. Telephone, 623-1671 HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS 71901

Hun ler G. Woody 5203 Halifax Dr. LO 2·3335 Little Rock, Ark.

= Court Reporter William Poston Bowen


217W.15IhSI. FR2-3170 Liltle Rock, Ark.


J. T. Bain R. E. Buck J. D. Reeves


Member of American and Arkansas Land Title Assc. Agent for American Title I nsurance Company Ph' PL 1-2183 and PL 1-4943-Springdale

135 E. Emma Avenue-P. O. Box 475 Over 50 Years of Service

Symbol of:



Robert M. McHenry-Rosemary McHenry ABSTRACTS-FIRE & CASUALITY INSURANCE INVESTMENTS Bring Your Title Troubles To Us. 1312 Oak St.-FA 9·2631-Conway

State Agent,


Little Rock, Arkansas (501) FR 5·4477

POLYGRAPH (LIE DETECTOR) EXAMINATIONS Verity Integrity - of wItnesses - defectIon and prevemion of theft fraun - pre-employment screeming LEGAL-SANK-BUSINESS PERSONAL Member·Amerlcan Polygraph ASSOciation

Approved and licensed by the Slate of Arkansas

NATIONAEINWstrGA~(ONagB'UREAU 1016 Fair Park Blvd. - MO 6-2866· Little Rock, Ark.

Your profession and our banl< have a lot in common...

... Iike, leadership You know J. Gaston Williamson as president of the Arkansas Bar Association ... and Edward L. Wright as president-elect of the American Bar Association. We know them both as directors and members of the Trust Committee at Worthen Bank. We're proud of their accomplishments, and grateful for their leadership. You have a lot in common with us. And our trust officers welcome the opportunity to work with you in the planning and management of your clients' estate and investment affairs.

WORTHEN Bank & Trust Company Little Rock The Bank That Does More For You Member FDIC, Federal Reserve System


MAY 1969  

And Don't Forget ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION 314 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas the good fellol".ship and the development of close friendship...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you