The Arkansas Lawyer Summer 2023

I love

I’m not sure why I waited so long to get it set up.

Law Firm in Ohio

EDITOR

Anna K. Hubbard

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Karen K. Hutchins

PROOFREADER

Cathy Underwood

EDITORIAL BOARD

Haley M. Heath

Anton L. Janik, Jr.

Jim L. Julian

Kimberly D. Logue

Drake Mann

Tyler D. Mlakar

Gordon S. Rather, Jr.

William A. Waddell, Jr., Chair

Brett D. Watson

Amie K. Wilcox

David H. Williams

Nicole M. Winters

OFFICERS

President Margaret Dobson

President-Elect

2023-2024 Arkansas Bar Association

President Margaret Dobson

Anna Hubbard

By Jay K. Robbins

By Michael B. Crosby, III, and Dalton B. Swindell

Troy A. Price

Administrator

Anna Hubbard

Brett D. Watson

President: Margaret Dobson; President-Elect: Kristin L. Pawlik; Immediate Past President: Joe F. Kolb; Secretary: Glen Hoggard; Treasurer: Brant Perkins; Parliamentarian: Brent J. Eubanks; YLS Chair: Caroline Kelley

Trustees:

District A1: Geoff Hamby, William M. Prettyman, Timothy R. Scott, Lindsey C. Vechik

District A2-A3: Matthew Benson, Evelyn E. Brooks, Jason M. Hatfield, Christopher M. Hussein, Michelle Rene' Jaskolski, Sarah C. Jewell, Russell B. Winburn

District A4: Kelsey K. Bardwell, Craig L. Cook, Brinkley B. Cook-Campbell, Dusti Standridge

District B : Michael S. Bingham, Randall L. Bynum, Thomas M. Carpenter, Tim J. Cullen, Bob Edwards, John A. Ellis, Michael K. Goswami, Steven P. Harrelson, Michael M. Harrison, Jim Jackson, Anton L. Janik, Jr., Jamie H. Jones, Victoria Leigh, B. Chase Mangiapane, William C. Mann III, Skye Martin, Stefan McBride, Kathleen M. McDonald, J. Cliff McKinney II, Jeremy M. McNabb, Molly M. McNulty, Meredith S. Moore, John Ogles, Casey Rockwell, Aaron L. Squyres, Jessica Virden Mallett, Danyelle J. Walker, Patrick D. Wilson, Ryan M. Wilson, George R. Wise

District C5: William A. “Bill ” Arnold, Joe A. Denton, John T. Henderson, Todd C. Watson

District C6: Bryce Cook, Paul N. Ford, Paul D. Waddell,

District C7: Kandice A. Bell, Robert G. Bridewell, Sterling T. Chaney, Taylor A. King

Delegate District C8: Carol C. Dalby, Amy Freedman, Connie L. Grace, Wm. Blake Montgomery

Ex-officio Members: Judge Mackie Pierce, Judge Chaney W. Taylor, Michael H. Crawford, Dean Cynthia Nance, Dean Colin Crawford, Denise Reid Hoggard, Eddie H. Walker, Jr., Christopher Hussein, Karen K. Hutchins, Jay K. Robbins

Fifth Annual Spend a Day with a Judge Contest

ArkBar’s Legal Related Education Committee chaired by Beverly Brister hosted its fifth annual Spend a Day with a Judge contest. The contest, available statewide to all high school students, has both an essay contest and a courtroom artist contest.

The theme for the essay competition parallels the American Bar Association’s Law Day Theme. Law Day is celebrated annually on May 1st nationwide. This year’s theme was “Cornerstones of Democracy: Civics, Civility, and Collaboration.” Contest winners are selected in a blind selection process, and essays are judged based on content, word choice, grammar, and mechanics. Artists are judged based on story, focus, depiction, clarity, color, contrast, artistic representation, and authenticity.

New 2023 Arkansas Form Book and Arkansas Business Associations Handbook

The new 2023 Arkansas Form Book was released at this year’s Annual Meeting. After four years of work by the following contributing authors, you now have access to either an electronic or print copy of the entire 1500-page book of forms or you can purchase by topic. Also released was the new Arkansas Business Associations Handbook. This handbook, together with the Arkansas Form Book—Business Organizations Edition, provides the perfect system to guide you in advising your business clients, whether their entities are corporations, limited liability companies or partnerships.

To order visit https://www.arkbar.com/for-attorneys/resourcesnav/publications/practice-handbooks.

Thank you to the 2023 Arkansas Form Book Authors

Robyn Allmendinger

Martha Ayres

Kelsey Boggan

William J. Butt II

Leslie Copeland

Grant Cox

J. B. Cross, Jr.

Nathan Culp

Chad L. Cumming

Thomas Daily

Lyndsey Dilks

Adam Franks

Robert J. Gibson

Stephen R. Giles

Nicole Gore

Adrienne Griffis

John Wesley Hall

Gregory T. Jones

Joe Kolb

Angela Mann

Gerry Schulze

Robert Serio

Carrie E. Smith

Madeline Taylor

Michael Thompson

Robert Tschiemer

Cathy Underwood, Editor

Jillian Wilson

Thank you to the 2023 Arkansas Business Association Handbook Authors

Robyn Allmendinger

Brady Brown

Dominic Dachille

Nicole Gore

Justin Lee

Michael McGill

Rebecca Roberts

Top winners received prizes, including a gavel, a state constitution, a certificate and, most importantly, the students got to “spend a day with a judge.”

This year’s winners of the essay contest were: first place, Sydney Massey from eStem High School; second place, Deerga Ramu from Bentonville High School; and third place, Rhealyn Schmidt from Walnut Ridge High School. This year’s winner of the artist contest was Alejandra Avilla from Fayetteville High School.

Host Judges were: Judge Amy Johnson, Judge Shawn Johnson, and Judge Butch Hale. Special thanks to Chad Cumming and Gill Ragon Owen, P.A. for hosting our breakfast and to Chief Justice Dan Kemp for hosting the students at the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Thank you to our Patron and Benefactor Members

Sustaining contributions are monetary contributions made in addition to membership that support Arkansas Bar Association programs. These funds generated by our Patrons and Benefactors allow the Association to continue to expand the programs and resources that we make available to our members. Your involvement makes the Association stronger, enables us to provide networking opportunities, including those with law students–the future of our profession, and allows for quality training, CLEs, and other benefits that meet the needs of our members, regardless of the number of years they have been in practice.

Please consider contributing if you have not done so already. To view the list of current sustaining members and to make a contribution please visit https://mx.arkbar.com/Attorneys/ Membership/Sustaining-Contributions.

Thank you to the following members who were inadvertantly left off of the list in the Spring 2023 issue of the magazine: Benefactors: Judge Mary Spencer McGowan, Joshua L. Potter and William Zac White; Patron: Evelyn E. Brooks.

Rhealyn Schmidt, Deerga Ramu, Chief Justice Kemp, Sydney Massey

Beverly Brister, Deerga Ramu, Sydney Massey, Rhealyn Schmidt, Chad Cumming

Judge Amy Johnson, Deerga Ramu, Sydney Massey, Judge Shawn Johnson

Rhealyn Schmidt and Judge Butch Hale

Drawing by artist winner Alejandra Avilla

ACCOLADES

The UA Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law’s Jessup International Trial Team won the First Place Memorial Award at the Jessup Regionals competition hosted by the University of Denver Sturm College. The American Bar Association Law Student Division has named the U of A Student Bar Association the 2023 Best Student Bar Association and the recipient of the 2023 Dean Henry J. Ramsey, Jr. Diversity Award. John Rouse of McGlinchey Stafford received the Capital Area Bar Association (CABA) 2023 Service Award.

APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS

John Rouse of McGlinchey Stafford has been elected to the Board of Directors of the CABA. John E. Tull III of Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC was recently appointed to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act Review Working Group by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin.

WORD ABOUT TOWN

Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC announced that Rachel A. Sullivant joined the firm as an associate in the firm’s Northwest Arkansas office. Rebecca Hurst and Jim Smith have joined Conner & Winters as partners in the firm’s Fayetteville office. Rose Law Firm announced that Bourgon Reynolds will serve as the managing member of the firm’s Northwest Arkansas office in Rogers. James, House, Swann & Downing, P.A. announced that Jay Shue joined the firm.

National High School Mock Trial Championship

Arkansas hosted the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Little Rock in May. Thank you to all of the volunteers who made this event a success, especially Jordan Tinsley (pictured far right), President of the Arkansas Mock Trial Foundation, Inc., and Anthony L. McMullen, Board Secretary and Host Director (pictured far left).

Celebrating 50 Years

Congratulations to the following members who have been admitted to the practice of law in Arkansas for 50 years. A celebration was held at the Lodge at Mt. Magazine State Park in April.

Charles A. Banks

Judge Ben T. Barry

Stephen Bennett

Ralph J. Blagg

Chauncey Brummer

C. Douglas Buford, Jr.

Anthony B. Cameron

Andrew L. Clark

David R. Cravens

Charles D. Davidson, Sr.

James M. Duckett

Forrest Eugene Dunaway

Edward Allen Gordon

David Greenbaum

Justice James H. Gunter, Jr.

Judge David F. Guthrie

John Wesley Hall, Jr.

David Michael Hargis

Joseph Hill

Robert Howard Hopkins, Sr.

Hon. Michael E. Irwin

Charles Cole Jeffries, Jr.

Fred C. Kirkpatrick

Thomas L. Mays

Henry N. Means III

Walter A. Murray

Wyck Nisbet, Jr.

Richard P. Osborne

Thomas L. Overbey

Judge William P. Rainey

John Boyd Robbins

Stephen M. Sharum

Theodore C. Smith

Hon. Jim D. Spears

The Arkansas Bar Association congratulates the Honorable Joyce Williams Warren for being inducted into the 2023 Arkansas Women's Hall of Fame

James D. Sprott

L. David Stubbs

Zachary David Wilson

William G. Wright

(Ret.)

It was great to celebrate 125 years of the Arkansas Bar Association with everyone who could come to Annual Meeting in Hot Springs! Thanks to Molly and Chris McNulty, we had excellent programs. Joe Kolb’s touches on the celebration dinner made the event grand, and the slide shows of pictures from the past illustrated the connections (and the fun!) that our members have with each other. And the video clips from those who were inducted last year into the Legal Hall of Fame reminded us of the difference that we can make in the world.

Now that the party is over, we are back at work making sure the Association is responsive to and meeting your needs.

We sent you a survey in April asking about your challenges, your needs, and your expectations, and you responded! In fact, we had twice the participation that the experts told us to expect. The results we have received are packed with a LOT of information. We need to break the information down into bite-size pieces and decide what is actionable now and what needs to be developed in the future.

Approximately 25 of our leaders and the Membership Value Task Force met on July 28 for a retreat (which is a nice way of saying a “workday”). They rolled up their sleeves and dug through the survey results. Our goal was to assist the Task Force in its duty to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees at its August meeting. We have so many talented people who are working on this, and I am excited to see the outcome.

We have new form books! It was clear in the survey that our members want a comprehensive library of legal forms to

assist them in providing excellent service to their clients. I am so pleased to say we have just completed that! Our new form books made their debut at the 125th Annual Meeting. A sincere thank you to all who spent countless hours preparing and updating the forms. Please see the list of contributing authors on page 4. The form books are available for purchase at a discounted rate for members, either electronically (and downloadable) through Fastcase, or you can request them in print format through https://www.fastcase.com/ shop/?publishers=arkansas-bar-Association.

It is so valuable to be connected to a network of attorneys to whom you can reach out, give and receive referrals, and help each other excel. “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor.” Eccl. 4:9. We want to connect and work with you, and help you connect with other attorneys and professionals who may help you. So we are asking if you have a local bar association meeting, or need a speaker, or if you are willing to host a local social event, we would love to have an opportunity to come. Please reach out and let us know.

For 125 years, the Arkansas Bar Association has supported attorneys who are making a difference in the world. Mother Teresa said, “None of us, including me, ever do great things. But we can all do small things, with great love, and together we can do something wonderful.” We want to continue supporting lawyers who wish to serve in government as well as who desire to give back to their communities and state in other ways. Our third Public Service Academy will be kicking off soon. Please consider participating and encourage your colleagues to apply.

We will also soon be taking applications for the second class of our Legal Hall of Fame. Please think about people you know who have made a difference and watch for the nomination forms. Let’s honor and spotlight them.

I would be remiss if I did not mention our continuing efforts to be fiscally responsible. We have worked closely with the Arkansas Bar Foundation and have reached an agreement regarding our physical building that has allowed us to continue to use the Bar Center, to reduce our physical footprint, and to bring our rental expenses down in line with current market rates. We are in the process of reviewing our existing programs to determine their continued viability and worth. Our Board of Trustees has been very diligent and hard at work to make sure we are being good stewards of the trust which you, our members, have placed in the Association.

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “If you want to be a true professional, do something outside yourself.” The Bar Association is working hard to help you excel, connect, and make a difference. But this is not only the job of the Board of Trustees. It is the job of each one of us. We need you, our members. We need your participation, your ideas, your voices, your concerns, and your engagement. Please encourage attorneys around you to join the Arkansas Bar Association. And not just to join, but to become active and to benefit from the Association.

Because we are stronger together. Together, we can help each other excel, connect, and make a difference. ■

Margaret Dobson is the President of the Arkansas Bar Association. She is the principal member of the Dobson Law Firm in Sheridan.

The Young Lawyers Section had a successful 125th Annual Bar Meeting in June, and we celebrated a great year under the leadership of Will Ogles. Will’s guidance allowed us to update and complete “18 & Life to Go: A Legal Handbook for Young Arkansans,” which we plan to distribute at area high schools in the fall.

Additionally, our signature spring event, Wills for Heroes, provided estate planning documents for over 70 first responders and their families just one day after a devastating tornado hit parts of Arkansas. SimpleWill played a significant role by providing an online platform to generate the estate planning documents, and the Young Lawyers Section expresses gratitude for their support.

The Executive Council of the Young Lawyers Section will be returning with familiar faces and welcoming new members. Frank LaPorte-Jenner will serve as Chair-Elect, Dominique Lane as Secretary/Treasurer, and Breanna Hendrix and Grace Fletcher will assist with engagement.

The Young Lawyers Section has big plans, including organizing exciting social events and meaningful pro bono opportunities to grow the organization and serve our communities. We aim to add social events across the state throughout the year and continue partnering with Legal Aid of Arkansas and Arkansas Access to Justice.

YLS plans to host free legal answers clinics in Rogers and Little Rock in collaboration with Arkansas Access to Justice. We will announce the dates soon and encourage members to watch for additional volunteer opportunities throughout the year.

The Young Lawyers Section acknowledges that our success would not be possible without the wonderful section members. We invite members to get more involved in YLS by reaching out with event ideas or expressing interest in contributing to the organization’s activities. We encourage everyone to follow their social media accounts to stay updated on upcoming YLS events.

Overall, the Young Lawyers Section is enthusiastic about the future, and we look forward to continuing our achievements and striving for new heights under the leadership of this Executive Council.

You can reach Caroline Kelley at ckelley@mwlaw.com and 479-464-5688.

2023-2024 YLS Executive Council

Will Ogles passes the gavel to Caroline Kelley

Caroline Kelley, Chair

Frank LaPorteJenner Chair-Elect

Dominique D. Lane Secretary/ Treasurer

Breanna M. Hendrix Chief Engagement Officer Kelsey Boggan District A Rep.

Samuel W. Mason District A Rep.

Marcus A. Priest District A Rep.

Justin W. Harper District B. Rep.

Syndey L. Rasch District B Rep.

Zachary R. Trail District B. Rep.

William T. Harris District C Rep. Ledly S. Jennings District C Rep.

Robert T. Riley District C Rep.

Sara M. Gay At-Large Rep.

Grace Wewers Fletcher At-Large Rep.

By

Margaret Dobson President

Stronger Together

Margaret Dobson understands the power of lawyers working together to make a difference. To illustrate, she invited the past presidents of the Arkansas Bar Association to participate in her swearing-in ceremony held on June 16, 2023. Before Chief Justice Dan Kemp administered the oath of office, 17 past presidents stood in front of the stage and passed a colossal gavel from one to another until it reached Margaret. This ceremony highlighted the Association’s strength and the enduring legacy of its leadership.

“It is a great visual of the legacy of the Arkansas Bar,” Margaret said. “We pass to the future the ability and the responsibility of doing what we do here.”

“125 years ago, a group of people got together and decided that they wanted to form the Arkansas Bar Association because they knew that we are stronger together,” she added. “Together we can help each other. Together we can help each other be excellent in what we do. We can make connections with each other and with other professionals and we can truly make a difference in the world. And we can help our members make differences in the areas each of us influence.”

During her swearing-in speech, Margaret showed the audience the 1904 book of the Arkansas Code. It was from the library of her late father, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Conley F Byrd, Sr., of Redfield, and it contained the entire set of laws for the state of Arkansas.

“We have gone from horse and buggy to airplanes and electric cars,” Margaret said. “We have gone from telegraphs to bluetooth and emails and instant communications; pony express to texting, candlelight and ink wells to the Zoom ring light. All through this path, all through these changes, the Arkansas Bar Association has been here. And we have been working with and supporting the lawyers who have helped make changes, help initiate new laws and made sure we are following the rule of law. It is important to do those things. And we are not done. We are constantly evolving and constantly working to be better.”

Margaret Dobson of Sheridan is the 126th President of the Arkansas Bar Association.

Anna Hubbard

Photos by Mike Pirnique

“This legal practice is so much faster today than it was when I started and light years faster than when my dad was practicing and served on the court. And there is an even greater need for the Arkansas Bar Association than there was 125 years ago. We need to help each other excel. We are stronger together. And we can help each other be excellent. We can help each other make the connections that need to be made. We can help each other make a difference in the world.”

Servant Leadership and Practical Wisdom

Margaret is an excellent example of what servant leadership looks like. She learned from her father whose motto was “each day I’ll do a golden deed.” True to his word, during his campaign for the Supreme Court in 1966, he loaned his car to a family stranded on the side of the road trying to make it to a funeral in Mississippi.

“My father would tell me that some people were made for buying, selling and trading and we were meant for service,” she said.

Margaret grew up on her family’s farm in Redfield with her brothers, Dr. Conley Byrd and Paul Byrd, and her sister Susan Holmes. Her brother-in-law, retired Judge Leon Holmes, has known her most of her life. “I have known Margaret since she was three years old,” Judge Holmes said. “When she was around five years, Johnny Walters, an old mechanic in Redfield, said of Margaret, ‘I hope she grows up good because if she don’t, as smart as she is, she’s gonna be a peck of trouble.’ Margaret did grow up good, and she remained smart—smart enough to be executive editor of the law review in law school and to clerk for Judge Bill Wilson afterward. Margaret is not just academic smart; she is also smart in practical matters. When she was around seven, her mother bought an assortment of cows— Angus, Herefords, Holsteins, Jerseys, etc. Someone commented, ‘no telling what’s going to come up from that pasture.’ Margaret responded, ‘Maybe baby calves.’ It is that practical wisdom that has enabled Margaret to become first rate in the area of family

Pictured from left: Margaret Dobson, Joe Kolb, Bob Estes, Paul Keith, Brian Rosenthal, Suzanne Clark, Tony Hilliard, Denise Hoggard, Eddie Walker, Brian Ratcliff, Charlie Harwell, Tom Womack, Jim Julian, Donna Pettus, Rick Ramsay, Ron Harrison, Harry Truman Moore and Lamar Pettus.

law and estate planning. As that story suggests, Margaret is country (and proud of it). When she was about eight, on a trip to Little Rock with her mother, Margaret saw a street cleaner and asked her mother, ‘Mama, what kind of combine is that?’ That she is genuinely and unashamedly country is what makes Margaret the right kind of person to practice solo in a small town.”

“Margaret’s intelligence and her practical wisdom have earned her the respect of the bar,” he added. “Her country spirit makes her someone with whom her clients are comfortable, someone they trust. When I want legal advice, I call Margaret. I do so because she is highly intelligent, very practical, and completely trustworthy. I am proud that she is my sister-in-law.”

Margaret is dedicated to her community. She is a small business owner representing families in her community through private practice in Sheridan. She currently serves as Redfield’s city attorney where for 10 years she has prosecuted crime and advised local officials. Margaret is also an attorney ad litem representing children and incapacitated individuals.

“It has been a phenomenal opportunity serving my community,” she said. “I have represented people from all walks of life.”

She is a Rotarian, a Paul Harris Fellow, and a board member for a local and regional library. She serves on an Incubator Committee at the Bowen School of Law that helps lawyers who want to establish practices in rural areas of the state. Margaret and her husband David have three sons, Nathan, Byrd and Shayne. She is active in her church and in Boy Scouts.

Past President Tony Hilliard has seen how involved Margaret is in her community. “Margaret is the type of small-town lawyer who inspired a lot of us to go into the legal profession,” Tony said. “Years ago I watched her lead the Grant County Bar Association and became aware of how involved she is in her community. She and I often discuss the best way to serve clients with difficult situations. Like so many small-town lawyers she must work in more areas of the law, but she is smart and willing to ask others with more experience in those legal areas for help.”

Margaret has 20 plus years of legal experience and manages a well-rounded law practice that has included family law, probate, and civil, as well as criminal prosecution. She was appointed by Governor Asa Hutchinson as a special justice on the Arkansas Supreme Court and has served as a special judge in several local jurisdictions. Margaret graduated cum laude from Harding University with a Bachelor of Business Administration in 1990. She graduated with highest honors from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law with a Juris Doctor in 1999. She served as executive editor of the law review.

Longtime friend Dustin McDaniel has known Margaret since law school and is proud to see her lead the Association. “Margaret is smart, hard-working and kind,” he said. “We met in law school, where she was gracious and friendly to everyone and always at the top of our class academically. She brings a calm confidence to any case or circumstance and commands the respect of everyone around her. I trust her completely, and I know that she is the right person to

lead the Arkansas Bar Association this year. She will do an outstanding job.”

Past President Jim Julian had the opportunity to work with Margaret during her time as a paralegal. “I met Margaret many years ago when she came to work for our law firm as a temporary addition to our staff,” Jim said. “As it turned out, Margaret was close friends with my paralegal, Connie Helmich. When Connie was preparing to take maternity leave, she arranged for Margaret to step into her paralegal role. Connie assured me that everything was taken care of. Man was it! Margaret was immediately impressive in everything she did for me. In fact, she did such an outstanding job that I started trying to recruit her to join our firm once she completed law school. Margaret is that rare combination of superior intellect, strong work ethic and great sense of humor. I am proud that we have remained friends all these years, and I am certain that the Arkansas Bar Association is in great hands this year with Margaret at the helm.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Price Marshall also had the opportunity to work with Margaret as a paralegal and is proud to see her leading the Association. They worked on a complicated environmental case in front of Judge George Howard in Jonesboro. Margaret was there to support Alan Perkins during the bench trial. “During that long week I was impressed with Margaret’s ability to work as part of a team, find common ground, and help all of the defendants without deviating from her primary role of supporting Alan and representing their defendant,” Chief Judge Marshall said. “She was very much a team player and always willing to help. So, a few years later when I was at the bar meeting, I remember being so excited to see her. I knew that she was going to be a fantastic lawyer who could work with colleagues even where interests diverge and find common ground, build consensus, and resolve difficult issues, which is one of the important things that lawyers do.”

Margaret knows well how to maintain a successful work-life balance. Despite having her first child during law school, she still managed to graduate near the top of her class. Justin T. Allen worked on the law review with Margaret in law school. “Although we are both from Sheridan, I didn’t get to know Margaret until we started

“Together we can help each other. Together we can help each other be excellent in what we do. We can make connections with each other and with other professionals and we can truly make a difference in the world.”

law school together,” he said. “But it didn’t take me long to figure out that she was brilliant, motivated and a delightful person. You have to admire anyone who can excel in that setting while at the same time starting a family. And, to no surprise, all she has done since then is find success. The association is in great hands under her leadership.”

After law school Margaret clerked for U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson who encouraged her to open her own practice. “She is very bright and writes well,” said Judge Wilson. “After she left the clerkship in my chambers she became a successful lawyer and she undoubtedly will be a fine bar president.”

Attorney and former circuit judge Thomas E. Brown has known Margaret for many years. “We have been involved on opposite sides in many cases and on similar sides on a few cases,” he said. “She has always exhibited great professionalism, common courtesy and respect. She is prompt and timely in her pleadings and paperwork. She has always been willing to sit down in a fair and reasonable manner to try and work out circumstances and cases. I am glad that she has been elected as bar president and I know she will do a great job. I have the utmost respect for her and the way she practices law. Especially in the matters of civility, courtesy, and respect for other attorneys.”

Past President Denise Hoggard said she has known for a long time that Margaret is the right person for this job. “She was born into the profession, and it is in her bloodline,” Denise said. “Being raised by a lawyer, and Arkansas Supreme Court Justice, she spent her life appreciating and

respecting the rule of law. She watched that being modeled for her.”

“Initially, she tried to resist the gravitational pull of this profession, but she knew in her heart that this is her calling,” Denise added. “She cares about the quality of the practice of law and the fair administration of justice. Even when the job calls for long hours, she never forgets about the importance of a task well done. It matters to her the impact she has on individuals, her community, and the people of our state that we serve. She is indefatigable in her efforts to make the quality of life better for all around her or in her sphere of influence. She’s smart, conscientious, committed, caring, practical, collegial and is a respecter of all persons.”

“I have worked with her in litigation, and I have consulted with her for her sound legal counsel. She is strategic in her thinking and is a problem solver. On the personal side, she is a valued friend and someone I look up to with pride.”

Here to help

As an active member of the Bar Association since she began practicing, Margaret appreciates the value of membership. As president she wants to ensure members gain the most value from their membership. One of the first projects with her new leadership team is to review the results of the membership survey that Immediate Past President Joe Kolb initiated.

“We did a member survey of what you value and how we can help you excel, how we can help you connect,” Margaret said. “We are going through those survey results.

We are listening. We are going to see what struggles practicing lawyers are having. What are the struggles our young lawyers are having and how can we help meet those needs? How can we help them excel? We want to give you the tools that you need to be excellent. We are going to look at the things we are doing, evaluating those and making sure we are getting the best bang for our buck and what we do for you.”

“I want, I welcome, your participation,” she added. “We are the Bar Association. It is not a group of people in a building in Little Rock. It is everyone in this room and I want everyone to be involved. We are committed to helping you connect. If you are willing to host an activity in your town, in your circuit, and you want someone from the Bar Association to come and speak, we would love to do that. Please reach out and let us know.”

“We want to make a difference in the world. We want to help you make a difference in the world. Yes, this year is going to be a heavy lift. As every past president has told me, it’s going to be a lot of work. But it is worth it. It is worth it to help this association support what we do because what we do is worth it. It is good. It is honorable. We are a line of defense for people who need help working our system. We are the change makers who make sure that the laws are more fair and equitable. And we protect the rule of law. I want to thank each of you for giving me the opportunity to serve. To give back something to this profession. I think what we do is very noble.” ■

Left photo: Justice Conley Byrd and Margaret; Center photo: David, Margaret, McKenna LaCosse, Nathan, Shayne and Byrd; Right photo: Margaret, David and Chief Justice Kemp

By Jay K. Robbins

2023 Legislative Update

The Arkansas Bar Association is your advocate at the State Capitol, and because of your help and support we had an extremely successful 2023 legislative session. The Regular Session of the 94th General Assembly convened on Monday, January 9, 2023, with a new Governor at the helm, a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate, 13 new members of the Senate and 27 new members of the House of Representatives. Legislators filed 1,439 bills this session and newly elected Governor Sarah Sanders signed 889 into law.

The Association worked full time to monitor every piece of legislation affecting the administration of justice and the legal profession. The Association could not have had a successful session without the help and support of the Legislation Committee, chaired by George Rozzell. This year’s Legislation Committee consisted of David Bingham, Taylor Chaney, Margaret Dobson, Glen Hoggard, Karen K. Hutchins, Scott Irby, Anton Janik, Joe Kolb, Alan Lane, Cliff McKinney, Kristin Pawlik, Ray Slaton, and Aaron Squyres. This committee reviewed every bill filed and every amendment made and worked tirelessly throughout the session to protect the practice of law and the administration of justice. This committee met every Friday throughout the legislative session to protect the practice of law and the legal profession. The Legislation Committee supported four bills, opposed two bills, and opposed one constitutional amendment.

The Legislation Committee could not have done it without the backing of the entire membership. The committee sent nearly 600 bills to over 30 different sections within the Association for input, consideration, and comment. Many thanks to all the members who reviewed bills, provided comments, and testified on behalf of the Association.

The Arkansas Bar Association’s Legislative Package

One of the primary priorities of the Association is to assist in the enactment of laws and improve the legal system in Arkansas. The Association’s 2023 legislative package included four proposals. Each proposal was submitted by the Jurisprudence and Law Reform Committee and approved by the Board of Trustees. Three of the four proposals were passed and signed into law.

Jay K. Robbins is the Director of Government Relations for the Arkansas Bar Association.

The proposal amending the Uniform Commercial Code was withdrawn by the sponsors with agreement by the Association.

Uniform Easement Relocation Act

The Uniform Easement Relocation Act, HB1408, now Act 505, was sponsored by Representative Matt Brown and Senator Clarke Tucker. The Uniform Easement Relocation Act allows the owner of real estate burdened by an easement to obtain a court order to relocate the easement if the relocation does not materially impair the utility of the easement to the easement holder, or the physical condition, use, or value of the benefited property. The burdened property owner must file a civil action, give other potentially affected realproperty interest owners notice, and bear all the costs of relocation.

Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act

The Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act (UCPDDA), HB1409, now Act 582, was also sponsored by Representative Matt Brown and Senator Clarke Tucker. This act is an update of a 1971 act that applied only to probate proceedings. The UCPDDA addresses nonprobate transfers of community property and provides clear default rules to ensure the proper disposition of community property from any estate, in any jurisdiction. Arkansas remains a noncommunity property state.

Uniform Commercial Code

The 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code, HB1588, was sponsored by Representative Stephen Meeks and Senator Jonathan Dismang. The 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code address emerging technologies, providing updated rules for commercial transactions involving virtual currencies, distributed ledger technologies (including blockchain), artificial intelligence, and other technological developments. The amendments span almost every article of the UCC and add a new Article 12 addressing certain types of digital assets defined as “Controllable Electronic Records” (CERs). After receiving pushback nationwide, the sponsors withdrew HB1588

for further consideration. The Jurisprudence and Law Reform Committee will consider adding it back to the legislative package for the 2025 legislative session.

An Act Concerning the Prepared Schedule of Property

HB1666, now Act 740, an act concerning the prepared schedule of property ordered when a judgment calls for property subject to execution, was sponsored by Representative Jimmy Gazaway. HB1666 was necessary because, as previously written, and as held in the Arkansas Court of Appeals in Hauser v. Sims, 2012 Ark. App. 295, 423 S.W.3d 104, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-221(a) was only applicable to Arkansas residents and was not enforceable against out-of-state persons or corporations. Before the passage of HB1666, the statute and appeals court decision placed Arkansas persons and small businesses at a disadvantage when trying to collect on a monetary judgment against a non-Arkansas resident individual or corporation.

Legislative Resources

The next Regular Session of the General Assembly will convene in January 2025. Members, sections, and committees of the Association are encouraged to participate in the development of the Association’s legislative package. Proposed legislation should be submitted in bill form and address issues concerning matters of jurisprudence and procedure, including reforms of the substantive law, and improvement in practice and in administration of the courts. Proposed legislation must be submitted by January 31, 2024. The Association’s bylaws charge the Jurisprudence and Law Reform Committee with reviewing the proposals and reporting their findings to the Board of Trustees. The Association’s package for the 2025 Session of the Arkansas General Assembly will be adopted at the June 2024 meeting of the Board of Trustees. Lastly, please consider becoming a supporting member of the nonpartisan political action committee. The Arkansas Bar PAC is your opportunity to be the change you wish to see. Becoming politically involved is the best way to ensure your voice is heard. ■

Roll Call: Report or Face the Consequences

What the Corporate Transparency Act Means for Your Business

By Michael B. Crosby, III, and Dalton B. Swindell

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) will lift the veil over previously undisclosed ownership information of business entities registered to do business in the United States as part of a congressional effort to curb illicit activity conducted through these corporate structures. Set to become effective January 1, 2024, the CTA will require the disclosure of personal information of those individuals considered “beneficial owners” of an entity, that is, individuals who either directly or indirectly 1) exercise substantial control over the entity or 2) hold at least 25% of a company’s equity interest.1 With millions of small businesses currently operating in the United States and millions more created yearly, the CTA will have a significant impact on how companies—and those who help create them—operate moving forward. Here is what you need to know.

According to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the disclosure of the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) of entities registered to do business in the United States will provide law enforcement with the ability to better protect U.S. national security interests and aid national intelligence agency efforts to combat illicit activity such as money laundering, tax fraud and the financing of terrorism.2 Current reporting requirements leave the door open for bad actors to conduct crimes through legally formed businesses in the United States and across the globe. Oversights in the current system’s reporting framework allow criminals to maintain anonymity through the formation of shell companies, exploiting the system’s pitfalls by concealing the identities of those who hold ownership interests. The CTA will reduce, if not eliminate, many of these loopholes, promoting honesty and fair play amongst businesses operating in the U.S. and abroad while providing FinCEN with the information necessary to track down and prevent criminal activity.

BOI will be stored in BOSS (the Beneficial Ownership Secure System)—the system currently being developed by FinCEN to receive, store, and maintain BOI.3 BOSS is a secure, nonpublic database maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury and held to the highest level of security protection afforded under the Federal Information Security Management Act.4 FinCEN will only disclose BOI upon

Michael B. Crosby, III, is an associate at Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC where he primarily focuses on real estate transactions and agriculture.

Dalton B. Swindell is an associate at Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC where he primarily focuses on real estate transactions.

request under special circumstances such as (i) a federal, state, or local criminal or civil investigation, (ii) a request made by a foreign government in accordance with a treaty or agreement, (iii) an official request made by law enforcement or judicial authorities of a foreign country, (iv) a financial institution subject to due diligence requirements with consent of the reporting company, or (v) a request by an authorized federal regulatory authority.5

What is BOI?

FinCEN requires entities to submit four pieces of Beneficial Ownership Information of individuals who either directly or indirectly 1) exercise substantial control over the entity or 2) hold at least 25% of a company’s equity interest.6 It’s important to note how many ways an individual could be considered to “exercise substantial control” over an entity under the terms of the CTA—an individual may directly or indirectly exercise substantial control over a reporting company through: (a) board representation; (b) ownership or

or a unique identifying number from an acceptable form of identification, such as a passport.

The submission of the legal name, date of birth, and address requirement of beneficial owners is standard and should be readily available. With respect to an individual, FinCEN identifier numbers may be acquired upon request or obtained through an acceptable identification document, such as a nonexpired passport issued by the United States or a nonexpired identification document issued by a state, local government, or Indian tribe to the individual for the purpose of identification of that individual.9

Who must report, and when?

The CTA requires each beneficial owner of an entity and any individual who files an application to form a domestic entity to report BOI, including those individuals who register a foreign entity to conduct business in the United States.10 These

• Entities in existence before the January 1, 2024, effective date shall submit BOI no later than 1 year after the effective date (January 1, 2025).

• Entities created after the January 1, 2024, effective date shall submit BOI no later than 30 days after the earlier of: 1) the date on which the reporting company receives actual notice that its creation (or registration) has become effective; or 2) a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the domestic reporting company has been created or the foreign reporting company has been registered.

• Any changes in an entity’s beneficial ownership structure require submission of updated BOI to FinCEN no later than 30 days after the date upon which the change occurred.

What entities are exempt from reporting

reporting requirements already in place, and the CTA intends to avoid duplicate filings and reporting overlaps through these exemptions. The exempt entities include but are not limited to banks, large operating companies, insurance producers, tax exempt entities, investment companies and public accounting firms.14

Penalties for reporting violations

Failing to meet BOI reporting requirements set forth in the CTA may result in civil and criminal penalties. If an individual, reporting company, or other entity willfully fails to report or provides false ownership information, the penalty may be a fine of $500.00 per day that the information goes unreported or uncured, up to $10,000.00, and imprisonment of up to two years—penalty guidelines set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 5336(h)(1) and adopted by FinCEN.15

How will the CTA impact attorneys?

With millions of small businesses currently operating in the United States and millions more created yearly, the CTA will have a significant impact on how attorneys approach entity formation for their clients moving forward. Depending on their involvement in the entity formation process, attorneys may be required to report their own personal information as well. Aside from reporting BOI, the CTA requires every reporting company to report information about its company applicants to FinCEN as well. A “company applicant” is defined as an individual who files (or is directly responsible for directing or controlling such filing) an application to form an entity or registers an entity to do business—something attorneys commonly do for clients.16

The information required to be reported for company applicants is identical to the information required of beneficial owners—the full legal name, date of birth, and current address of the individual. Attorneys who commonly function as company applicants for their clients may benefit from the use of a FinCEN identifier (issued by FinCEN upon request) in place of the standard identifying information.17 Attorneys should consider this expanded

reporting requirement when outlining the nature of their engagement with clients. Some attorneys may approach a client’s entity formation process from a purely advisory standpoint, while others may take a more hands-on approach. Attorneys must educate themselves on how the CTA distinguishes these roles and the impact it may have on their own obligations. Keep in mind reporting companies created or registered before the effective date of the regulation do not need to report information about their company applicants.18

Not only will attorneys need to reassess which role they will play when aiding a client in the formation of an entity, they will also need to properly advise and educate the client on the details associated with that role. Some clients may be sophisticated enough to manage the filing and reporting themselves, while others may need an attorney to do the heavy lifting. In addition to the initial reporting requirements, the CTA requires updates whenever the beneficial ownership of a company changes, thus placing the obligation upon someone to report that updated information within 30 days to FinCEN.19 That “someone” may be an attorney if he or she assumed the role of company applicant during formation, or it may be an individual associated with the entity itself—a manager, member, or registered agent.20 Regardless, those details must be discussed at length with clients to ensure the client fully understands the scope of the attorney’s role and how that may impact their own reporting obligations in the future.

Conclusion

Business entities play an incalculable role in the economies of the world. While the CTA will protect the integrity of the system, it will require adjustments and enhanced obligations on entities and those helping create them. Companies and attorneys should be assessing whether they will be required to report to FinCEN and begin compiling all relevant documents in preparation for the reporting deadline. Attorneys would do well to familiarize themselves with the CTA beyond the contents of this article so that they can

better assist clients with entity formation in the future, ensuring the requirements of the CTA are conducted in a way that promotes honesty and fair play amongst businesses in the United States and abroad.

Endnotes:

1. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,507 (Sept. 30, 2022).

2. Id. at 59,498.

3. Id. at 59,508.

4. Id.

5. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,507 (Sept. 30, 2022).

6. Id.

7. Id. at 59,594.

8. Id. at 59,507.

9. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,507 (Sept. 30, 2022).

10. Id.

11. Id. at 59,593.

12. Id.

13. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,539 (Sept. 30, 2022).

14. Other exempt entities include: Depository Institution Holding Companies; State-Licensed Insurance Companies; State-Regulated Insurance Companies; Entity Assisting a Tax-Exempt Entity; Subsidiaries; Pooled Investment Vehicles; Investment Adviser; Venture Capital Fund Adviser; Inactive Entities; Securities Issuers; Domestic Governmental Authorities; Registered Money Transmitting Business; Broker-Dealers; Security Exchange Clearing Agents; Commodity Exchange Act; Registered Entities; Public Utilities; Financial Market Utilities; Other Exchange Act Registered Entities.

15. 31 U.S.C. § 5336(h)(1).

16. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,536 (Sept. 30, 2022).

17. Id. at 59,507.

18. Id. at 59,509.

19. Id.

20. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59,498, 59,536. ■

FABAbill CAN HELP

• UNPRECEDENTED EASE OF USE

• NO BILLING CODES TO MEMORIZE

• NO MORE FORGOTTEN HOURS MEANS MORE MONEY FOR YOU

• SPEND MUCH LESS TIME BILLING

• INVOICES ARE EASY FOR CLIENTS TO UNDERSTAND

• TRANSITION IS PAINLESS

• EASILY CREATES ATTORNEY FEE AFFIDAVITS

Recommended by attorneys and paralegals based on ease of use & uncomplicated capabilities

www.fababill.com

FABAbill

You can learn more about FABAbill, watch a brief video demonstration, or request a free trial by visiting the FABAbill website (www.fababill.com).

By Troy A. Price

Amicus Curiae in Federal Trial Courts

Introduction

Circulation of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s order inviting interested nonparties to consider filing briefs of amicus curiae in his court in the Eastern District of Arkansas invites a fresh look at the role of such filings in federal trial courts in Arkansas and beyond. Judge Rudofsky issued his order regarding amicus briefs on March 21, 2023, indicating that the invitation to file amicus briefs would be extended to all of his cases.1 The judge expressed his views that amicus briefs could have “considerably more impact” at the district court level than the appellate level, and that “a healthy number” of district court cases warrant amicus briefing.2

Amicus Briefs in Arkansas District Courts

Historically,3 amicus briefs have been filed in Arkansas district courts when certain cases raise constitutional or statutory issues,4 or questions of broad public interest. Some parties have been granted leave to submit amicus briefs after their attempts to intervene have failed.5 In other cases, Arkansas district courts have sought or permitted input from governmental entities to assist in resolving disputes between parties.6 Some briefs of amicus curiae seek to aid the court by providing input from experts in a field at issue in the litigation.7 In a case involving requests for release of the president’s videotaped deposition in a criminal trial, Judge George Howard, Jr., actually invited representatives of the news media to file an amicus curiae brief, “in recognition of the press’ role ‘in preserving and perpetuating democracy . . . over the centuries.’”8

The district court even has discretionary authority to appoint amicus curiae in appropriate circumstances.9 District courts commonly permit amicus curiae participation when the nonparty will or may be affected by the outcome of the litigation.10 In a 1953 case, Judge John E. Miller found the interests of individual milk haulers so compelling that he allowed them to participate in trial, make arguments, and file briefs as amicus curiae, although he denied their motion to intervene.11

The United States appeared as amicus curiae in a case involving both constitutional issues and broad public interest in the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School.12 The American Civil Liberties Union, which is often a party to constitutional litigation, appeared as amicus curiae in an action challenging Arkansas law allowing creation and operation of suburban and rural improvement districts.13

Troy A. Price is a partner in the firm of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP and a Fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Logistics of filing

The United States Advisory Committee on Civil Rules considered but did not adopt a March 2021 proposal for an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to add a rule providing for amicus briefs in district courts.14 Even so, there is a long history of district courts exercising inherent authority to accept filings from friends of the court.15

In the absence of a local rule (or a standing order like Judge Rudofsky’s), some commentators recommend that those who wish to file amicus briefs adhere to the procedures set forth in Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.16 The federal appellate rule provides that nonparties other than federal or state officers and agencies must file a motion for leave to file, stating the movant’s interest, the reasons why an amicus brief is desirable, and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.17 The appellate rule also requires the nonparty to state whether counsel for a party authored the amicus brief in whole or in part, whether a party or its counsel contributed money to fund the submission of the amicus brief, and whether a person other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel contributed money intended to fund the preparation or submission of the amicus brief.18 Under the federal appellate rule, the motion must be accompanied by the proposed brief of amicus curiae.19

A movant seeking to file an amicus brief in district court is more likely to obtain leave to file if the motion demonstrates that the brief will “present ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are not found in the parties’ briefs.”20 The movant should show it has “unique information or perspective [that] can help the Court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.”21 Upon determining that these criteria are met, the district court has “broad discretion to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.”22

(While the Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently noted that amicus briefs in that venue must base their arguments on facts shown at trial and points raised by the parties,23 nearly 83% of federal district judges who responded to a survey

said briefs of amicus curiae may be useful to offer legal arguments that are absent from the parties’ briefs.24 Nevertheless, amicus curiae in federal court must strike a delicate balance—they should not “hijack” the litigation by straying too far from the parties’ agenda, but the amicus brief also should not “merely duplicate the information presented by the parties.”25)

Noting the importance of careful timing, some commentators recommend seeking leave to file an amicus brief after the party the brief is supporting has filed its principal brief, but in advance of the opposing party’s responsive or reply brief.26 It is also recommended that the amicus brief be “materially shorter” than the briefs of the parties.27 Notably, the federal rule applicable to amicus briefs on appeal provides that such briefs be filed no later than seven days after the brief of the party that the amicus supports.28 That rule also dictates that the amicus brief must be no longer than half the limit on pages, words, or lines applicable to the principal briefs of the parties.29

Conclusion

As Judge Rudofsky noted, the opportunity to file a brief of amicus curiae in a district court case is also a chance to impact the resolution of the litigation and advance the interests of nonparties. There is a long history of such filings in federal court in Arkansas. In an appropriate case, counsel should consider seeking leave to file a brief of amicus curiae.

Endnotes:

1. See Huck v. Dillon Transp. LLC, No. 4:22cv-00546 LPR, Order (E.D. Ark. March 21, 2023). The standing order also provides that the principal drafter of an amicus brief on a dispositive motion or as to preliminary injunctive relief will be granted at least 10 minutes of oral argument, so long as that person has been a lawyer for fewer than seven years.

2. Id. For an analysis of the utility of amicus briefs in federal courts generally, see Linda Sandstrom Simard, An Empirical Study of Amici Curiae in Federal Court: A Fine Balance of Access, Efficiency, and Adversarialism, 27 Rev. Litig. 669 (2008).

3. In an Arkansas district court case in the early twentieth century, the United States

appeared as an amicus curiae to brief the constitutionality of a federal law on the liability of rail carriers to their employees. Watson v. St. Louis I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 169 F. 942, 943 (E.D. Ark. 1909). Later, in a 1950 quiet title action, counsel before the district court were identified as representing unspecified amicus curiae. Banks v. Chicago Mill & Lbr Co., 92 F. Supp. 232 (E.D. Ark. 1950). (However, in a 2003 first amendment lawsuit concerning access to the Harry Potter series of books in a school district’s libraries, Judge Jimm Larry Hendren noted the “unusual nature” of the attempted amicus curiae filing in district court, and decided not to consider the amicus brief. Counts v. Cedarville School Dist., 295 F. Supp. 2d 996, 998 (W.D. Ark. 2003). But in so doing, Judge Hendren acknowledged that amicus briefs had been received in matters pending in district courts. Id.)

4. In Purdom v. Morgan, 3:16-CV-3072, 2017 WL 700138 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 22, 2017), a challenge to the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute, the Arkansas Attorney General filed a brief as amicus curiae to opine on the effect and effective date of a statute amending the Arkansas law.

5. See, e.g., Edwards v. Beck, No. 4:13CV00224 SWW, 2013 WL 12146739 (E.D. Ark. 2013) (denying motion to intervene in abortion rights case, but granting leave to file an amicus brief on permanent injunction issue); Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Comm’n, 107 F.R.D. 335, 343 (E.D. Ark. 1985) (motions to intervene were denied but court would not foreclose parties from attending proceedings and seeking leave to file amicus briefs); Rock v. Bryant, 459 F. Supp. 64, 68 (E.D. Ark. 1978) (motion of former candidate to intervene in suit challenging state election law was denied, but his brief was treated as an amicus curiae brief). Cf. United States ex rel. Murphy v. Baptist Medcare, Inc., No. 4:02-CV-440 (RSW), 2005 WL 8154773 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2005) (United States declined to intervene, but submitted brief as amicus curiae in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment).

6. For instance, Chief Judge J. Smith Henley granted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission leave to state its

views concerning the possibility of illegal discrimination in a suit against the Arkansas labor commissioner challenging a state statute regarding overtime pay for women. Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Hays, 318 F. Supp. 1368, 1373 (E.D. Ark. 1970). See also Work v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 132 (W.D. Ark. 1989) (in Clean Water Act case, court acknowledged amicus curiae brief from attorney for Arkansas Department of Pollution, Control & Ecology); In re State of Missouri, 8 B.R. 974 n.2 (E.D. Ark. 1980) (district court received amicus curiae briefs from Attorneys General of Texas and Iowa).

7. See, e.g., Brandt v. Rutledge, 551 F. Supp. 3d 882, 890 & n.3 (E.D. Ark. 2021) (noting opinions of medical organizations regarding effective treatment for gender dysphoria).

8. United States v. McDougal, 940 F. Supp. 224, 225 (E.D. Ark. 1996) (quoted case omitted).

9. Lee v. Miller Cty, No. 4:08-cv-04102, 2009 WL 1537785 (W.D. Ark. June 1, 2009) (acknowledging discretionary authority but declining to appoint amicus curiae).

10. See, e.g., United States v. Tyson’s Poultry, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 53 (W.D. Ark. 1963) (appearance by Arkansas Poultry Federation in action for enforcement of subpoenas issued to alleged live poultry dealers); Echubby Lake Hunting Club, LLC v. United States, No. 5:03CV00285 JMM, 2005 WL 8164449 (E.D. Ark. June 6, 2005) (Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation filed amicus curiae brief).

11. Durkin v. Pet Milk Co., 14 F.R.D. 374, 381 (W.D. Ark. 1953). See also Wessel v. Pryor, 461 F. Supp. 1144, 1145 (E.D. Ark. 1978) (In a case involving a constitutional challenge to Arkansas’ civil commitment procedures, Judge G. Thomas Eisele allowed amicus curiae participation on behalf of state chancery judges in post-consent decree conferences.).

12. Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Ark. 1957).

13. Clem v. Cooper Comm., Inc., 344 F. Supp. 579 (E.D. Ark. 1972).

14. https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/ records-rules-committees/rules-suggestions.

15. See generally A. Petry, Annotation, Right to file briefs in trial court, 86 A.L.R.2d 1233

(1962).

16. E.g., posting of Josephine Mason Patrick. Amicus Briefs: Friend of the District Court, Too? https://www.appellateinsight. com/2019/09/10/amicus-briefs-2/.

17. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(3). The motion for leave to file procedure was followed by the City of Little Rock in obtaining leave to appear as amicus curiae in Advanced Comm’ns Corp. v. MCI Comm’ns Corp., 101 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (E.D. Ark. 2000).

18. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E).

19. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(3).

20. Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Security, 518 F. Supp. 3d 448, 453 & n.2 (D.D.C. 2021) (denying motion to strike amicus brief) (quoted case omitted).

21. Id. (quoting Hard Drive Prods, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495, 892 F. Supp. 2d 334, 334, 337 (D.D.C. 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

22. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

23. E.g., Baptist Health v. Murphy, 358 Ark. 341, 189 S.W.3d 438 (2004); Ark. S. Ct. R. 4-6(a) (“The briefs shall be limited to matters in the record on appeal and shall address only the issues raised by the parties at the appellate level.”).

24. Simard, supra note 2, at 692.

25. Id.

26. Akiva Shapiro, Lee R. Crain, Amanda L. Lesavage, Tips for District Court Amicus Brief Success, 264 N.Y. L. J. 122 (2020), published at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ShapiroCrain-LeSavage-Tips-for-District-CourtAmicus-Brief-Success-New-York-LawJournal-12-23-2020.pdf.

27. Id.

28. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(6).

29. Compare Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) (limiting amicus briefs to one-half the length of principal briefs) with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7) (limiting principal briefs of appellate parties to 30 pages, or 13,000 words, or 1,300 lines of text when printed in a monospaced face). ■

Premier Sponsor

Premium Sponsor

Ted B. Lyon & Associates

Keynote Sponsor

Houston Chapter

Reception Sponsor

Orange County Chapter

Lunch Sponsor

San Francisco Chapter

Silver Sponsors

H. Grady Chandler

R. Scott Costantino

Al Ellis

Joel J. Steed

William M. Toles

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

Iowa Chapter

Bronze Sponsors

Buffalo Chapter

Rio Grande Valley Chapter

Sacramento Valley Chapter

Virginia Chapter

Program Sponsors

Joshua A. Whitman

Arkansas Chapter

Jacksonville Chapter

Little Rock Marriott | October 5, 2023

In a time of great political polarization, fast-paced and underexamined “news,” and community division caused by the stresses of a post-pandemic world and ongoing racial injustice, it is crucial that we examine the institutions that have been sacred to us. Join us as we talk with lawyers, judges, journalists, and social scientists to understand the modern jury system in today’s society.

Speakers:

Hon. Kristine G. Baker, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas

Hon. Christopher R. Cooper, U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia

Benjamin L. Crump, American Civil Rights Attorney

Prof. Thaddeus Hoffmeister, University of Dayton

Dahlia Lithwick, Author, Journalist

Hon. Lavenski R. Smith, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Andrew Walker, Cogent Legal

Registration fee: $149 Register at www.abota.org

This program is open to all in the legal community. The ABOTA Foundation will apply for up to 5 hours of CLE credit.

By Brett D. Watson

The English Common Law: Still Weighty After All These Years1

King James the First has a translation of the Bible named after him, but what relevance does he have to your law practice? More than you might think.

Nestled in Title 1 of the Arkansas Code among statutes about the state flower, insect, beverage, musical instrument, and dinosaur;2 resting alongside mesmerizing provisions about the Arkansas Code Revision Commission;3 and hidden near laws declaring holidays, memorial days, and observances, including the much-celebrated John R. “Johnny” Cash Day,4 is this gem,5 Arkansas’ reception statute:

The common law of England, so far as it is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes of the British Parliament in aid of or to supply the defects of the common law made prior to March 24, 1606, which are applicable to our own form of government, of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States or the Arkansas Constitution and laws of this state, shall be the rule of decision in this state unless altered or repealed by the General Assembly of this state.6

In modern terms: The English common law in effect before March 24, 1606, and any statutes amending it before then are the law of Arkansas, unless the General Assembly has amended the common law.

You may think, “Arkansas became a state almost 200 years ago. Our courts and the General Assembly have obliterated the common law that existed in 1606. It is long gone, irrelevant.” Think again.

In this article, we review the historical background of the reception statute, survey the statute’s role in Arkansas law, and offer questions and comments regarding its relevance and to help in your practice.

I. The Historical Background of the Reception Statute

When the land that is now Arkansas was still part of the Missouri Territory, an 1816 territorial act read similarly to Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-119, the current

Brett D. Watson is an Arkansas appellate attorney.

reception statute.7 The act declared that English common law (not French law) would govern the Missouri Territory.8 Rather than March 24, 1606 (the date in the current statute), the 1816 act set the date as “prior to the fourth year of James the First.”9 When Arkansas became a state, the first General Assembly passed a similar law.10

The use of 1606 (the fourth year of James the First) coincides with the grant of the Virginia colony’s charter.11 A 1972 Arkansas case mistakenly says the fourth year of James the First began a year later in 1607 and thus incorrectly ties the date to the founding of Jamestown.12 Other states pick different years, say, 1620 or 1776. For example, Rhode Island’s benchmark is the Declaration of Independence.14 As for the selection of March 24, it was the last day of the calendar year under the Julian calendar—the calendar England used in 1606.15

II. The Reception Statute in Arkansas: 1836–1947

Our courts wasted no time before relying on the reception statute. Four years into statehood, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that setoff was not part of English law in 1606; setoff had been introduced in England later.16 But the territorial legislature had passed a statute allowing setoff in 1818, and, as Watkins notes, the 1837 General Assembly had passed a similar statute.17 As the reception statute envisioned, the common law had been “altered … by the General Assembly.”

In another early case, the Arkansas Supreme Court looked to “the ancient common law” to hold that the failure to allege venue in a complaint involving a transitory action was not fatal.18

To the chagrin of future law-school students, another case adopted the Rule in Shelley’s Case, which made the cut by 200plus years, having arisen during the reign of Edward III in the 14th Century.19

In 1921, the Arkansas Supreme Court considered an 1820 Massachusetts case that cited English cases from 1216, 1416, and 1422 to find that a tenancy by the entirety in personal property could exist under the common law.20

early English cases, and the early writers on the common law, such as Blackstone, Kent and Bracton. Cases from other American states are also persuasive as to what was the common law.”22 The State tried to force a company to disclose confidential information so the State could pursue recovery of certain monies.23 The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that the State did not have the power at common law to force production of the information: “To allow the claimed right of the sovereign … through such a ‘fishing expedition’ … would be far in excess of the common law doctrine of bona vacantia.”24

III. The Reception Statute in Arkansas: 1948–Present

Although the General Assembly has modified it through the years, the English common law remains relevant. In 1989, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that Arkansas had adopted the English Statute of Uses via the reception statute.25

In 1994, the Arkansas Supreme Court, noting that Arkansas adopted English common law unless amended or repealed

referred to as ‘owners or lessees of the real property’ in the posting laws,” particularly Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-403(b).26

But not all efforts to apply the English common law succeed. A criminal defendant argued that rape could not occur between spouses under the common law, contending that consent to all sexual relations was part of the marriage contract and that the General Assembly had never said otherwise.27 The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected that argument: when defining “rape,” the General Assembly said only that the victim must be “another person” and did not exclude spouses. The General Assembly had thus changed the common law.28

For more Arkansas cases applying the English common law, see a 1998 law review article by Stephen J. Maddex.29

And finally, the General Assembly has not forgotten about the reception statute. From a 2019 act: “A statement of the law in the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance does not constitute the public policy of this state if the statement of the law is inconsistent

An early code book showing the reception statute as passed by the Missouri Territory

or in conflict with, or otherwise not addressed by: (1) A statute of the State of Arkansas; (2) The common law and statute law of England as adopted in Arkansas under § 1-2-119; or (3) Arkansas case law precedent.”30

IV. The Reception Statute’s Continued Relevance

The English common law remains relevant. Although the General Assembly has amended the common law, Arkansas lawyers would be remiss if they were to overlook the continued vitality of the English common law. To that end, I offer some questions and comments.

Do Arkansas courts have authority to modify the common law? The text of § 1-2119 suggests not, and the Eighth Circuit, summarizing Arkansas law in 1993, said, “A common law doctrine remains in effect in Arkansas unless the legislature enacts a statute that manifests the legislature’s clear intent to supersede the common law.”31 Four years later, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court took a different view, one of judicial prerogative: “[T]he Court, not the Legislature, should extirpate those [common-law] rules of decision which are admittedly unjust …. [A]s a part of our common-law doctrine, this Court is free to amend the common law.… [W]e are not bound to adhere to outmoded holdings pending legislative action.”32 But if the General Assembly has adopted the English common law as substantive law and only the General Assembly may amend it, what authority do Arkansas courts have to amend the common law?33

And if Arkansas courts lack authority to amend the common law, should cases that have modified the common law be overruled? Or does stare decisis mean the “new” common law remains? Take a 2008 dissent by then Judge (eventually Justice) Hart in which she expressed frustration over what she viewed as unauthorized changes to the common law: “the common law concerning real property remained for more than a century and a half much the same as it existed in England on March 24, 1606 .… However, in the last decade, particularly where the common law regarding acquiescence is concerned, it has morphed into an unrecognizable state, courtesy of

the Arkansas Court of Appeals.”34 If Judge Hart was correct that the Court of Appeals had changed the common law, an attorney might argue that those decisions should be overruled as violating § 1-2-119. But even if the attorney were right, would stare decisis preclude overruling the decisions?

One case in which the Arkansas Supreme Court amended the common law is Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., imposing for the first time “common-law liability for the negligence of vendors licensed by the state who sell alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons who, in turn, cause injury to third persons.”35 Although the court cited a 1989 statute that created a “high duty of care” for those who hold a license to sell alcoholic beverages, the court conceded, “We have no doubt that the high duty of care established by [the act] was essentially for regulatory purposes [rather than to impose liability].”36 The court imposed the new liability anyway, which leads to the question: if the General Assembly sets a duty of care for regulatory purposes, is that an amendment of the common law sufficient to impose a new form of liability for tort purposes?

Another issue is that Arkansas courts do not conclude that the General Assembly intended to override the common law absent clear intent to do so.37 Does that rule apply to all the common law or only to English common law that existed in 1606? An appellee recently argued that the clearintent standard applies only to common law that existed in 1606.38 The Court of Appeals did not address the argument,39 so the question remains.

If you still think English common law is irrelevant, consider that the United States Supreme Court decided a case last year in which the English common law factored significantly.40 And this year, the Arkansas General Assembly cited the reception statute and the common law to support protecting life in the womb.41

You might not want to take up tea and crumpets or stroll over to your local pub for fish and chips, but you might consider adding some English common law to your repertoire. Common-law commentaries by Blackstone and others are online thanks to modern technology that King James could never have imagined.42

Endnotes:

1. Apologies to Paul Simon, Still Crazy After All These Years, on Still Crazy After All These Years (Columbia 1975), and Karen Carpenter, Still Crazy After All These Years, on Karen Carpenter (A&M 1996).

2. In order, the apple blossom, honeybee, milk, fiddle, and Arkansaurus fridayi. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 1-4-109 (flower), -110 (insect), -112 (beverage), -113 (musical instrument), -135 (dinosaur).

3. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 1-2-301 to -308.

4. Ark. Code Ann. § 1-5-120 (February 26). Okay, Johnny Cash Day is not much celebrated. But it should be.

5. The official state gem, by the way, is the diamond. Ark. Code Ann. § 1-4-111(a).

6. Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-119.

7. 1816 Mo. Laws 32. See also Cox v. Morrow, 14 Ark. 603, 613 (1854) (discussing the 1816 act).

8. 1816 Mo. Laws 32. See also Joseph Fred Benson, Reception of the Common Law in Missouri: Section 1.010 as Interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, 67 Mo. L. Rev. 595, 596 (2002) (discussing the dispute over whether English or French law would govern the former Louisiana Territory, from which the Missouri Territory, and later Arkansas, was formed).

9. 1816 Mo. Laws 32. See also John J. Watkins, The Right to Trial by Jury in Arkansas after Merger of Law and Equity, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 649, 704 n.128 (2002).

10. Ark. Rev. Stat. ch. 28, § 1 (1837).

11. Glasgow’s Lessee v. Smith, 1 Tenn. 144, 154 (1805); Scott Llewellyn & Brian Hawkins, Taking the English Right to Counsel Seriously in American Civil Gideon Litigation, 45 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 635, 639 n.20 (2012).

12. Grimmett v. State, 251 Ark. 270-A, 272, 476 S.W.2d 217, 220 (1972). See also Llewellyn & Hawkins, supra note 11, at 639 n.20 (discussing states that have misdated James the First’s fourth year).

13. Jones v. Clinton, 869 F. Supp. 690, 692 (E.D. Ark. 1994), aff’d, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).

14. R.I. Gen. Laws § 43-3-1.

15. Benson, supra note 8, at 601–02, citing Chronology and Dating, at http://www. medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/chron. shtml. England switched to the Gregorian

calendar in 1752. Id.

16. Small v. Strong, 2 Ark. 198, 206 (1840).

17. Watkins, supra note 9, at 704 (citing Ark. Rev. Stat. ch. 139, § 1 (1837)).

18. Pullen v. Chase, 4 Ark. 210, 212–13 (1842).

19. Hardage v. Stroope, 58 Ark. 303, 307–08, 24 S.W. 490, 491 (1893). Hardage noted that the General Assembly had modified the rule in one respect: abolishing estates tail. Id at 310, 24 S.W. at 492.

20. Union & Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hudson, 147 Ark. 7, 13–14, 227 S.W. 1, 3 (1921) (citing Draper v. Jackson, 16 Mass. 480 (1820)).

21. State v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 212 Ark. 530, 533–39, 206 S.W.2d 771, 773–76 (1947).

22. Id. at 535, 206 S.W.2d at 774.

23. Id. at 539, 206 S.W.2d at 776.

24. Id.

25. Smith v. Wright, 300 Ark. 416, 423, 779

S.W.2d 177, 181 (1989).

26. Nelson v. State, 318 Ark. 146, 152, 883 S.W.2d 839, 842 (1994).

27. Jones v. State, 348 Ark. 619, 625, 74 S.W.3d 663, 667 (2002).

28. Id. at 626, 74 S.W.3d at 667.

29. Steven J. Maddex, Propst v. McNeill: Arkansas Landlord-Tenant Law, A Time for Change, 51 Ark. L. Rev. 575, 602 n.189 (1998).

30. 2019 Ark. Acts 742, § 1 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 23-60-112).

31. Lusby v. Union Pac. R.R., 4 F.3d 639, 642 (8th Cir. 1993).

32. Shannon v. Wilson, 329 Ark. 143, 151, 947 S.W.2d 349, 353 (1997).

33. Before you cry “Amendment 80,” nothing in Amendment 80, at first glance, gives the Arkansas Supreme Court authority to amend the common law. In fact, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction based on Section 3 of Amendment 80 between procedural law as the Supreme Court’s purview and substantive law as the General Assembly’s purview. See, e.g., Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health Sys., 2012 Ark. 14, at 5–6, 386 S.W.3d 385, 389. Some may say that the judicial power inherently includes the right to change the common law, but that idea is disputed. Shannon suggests it does; Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-119 and other cases cited in this article suggest it does not.

34. Boyser v. Shoemake, 101 Ark. App. 148, 154, 272 S.W.3d 139, 144 (2008) (Hart, J. dissenting) (citation omitted).

35. 37 Ark. 24, 26, 986 S.W.2d 410, 411 (1999).

36. Id. at 32, 986 S.W.2d at 414.

37. See, e.g., Roeder v. United States, 2014 Ark. 156, at 11–12, 432 S.W.3d 627, 634–35; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mullinax, 336 Ark. 335, 344, 984 S.W.2d 812, 816 (1999).

38. See Appellee’s Br. at 19–20 in Taylor Family Ltd. P’ship “B” v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. CV-20-704, 2021 WL 9794335 (Ark. App., March 2, 2021).

39. Taylor Family Ltd. P’ship “B” v. XTO Energy, Inc., 2022 Ark. App. 521, 658 S.W.3d 455.

40. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2235–51, 2253–54 (2022); id. at 2324 (Breyer, J., Sotomayor, J., and Kagan, J., dissenting).

41. 2023 Ark. Acts 310, § 1(a).

42. For example, Blackstone’s commentaries are online courtesy of Yale Law School. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ blackstone.asp. ■

McMath Woods is proud to announce its newest partners – Sarah C. Jewell and Tim Giattina. For seventy years, McMath Woods attorneys have proudly represented injured and wronged Arkansans. Sarah and Tim will help the firm continue its mission of personal attention and proven results.

Samuel E. Ledbetter Will Bond

Carter C. Stein

Charles D. Harrison Neil Chamberlin

Sarah C. Jewell Tim Giattina

Sarah C. Jewell

Tim Giattina

New Arkansas Asset Protection Laws: Arkansas' New Acts Concerning Trust Decanting and Domestic Asset Protection

By Brady Brown

Introduction

The 2023 legislative session of the Arkansas General Assembly has resulted in many substantial changes to our state’s laws. In particular, two new acts have reshaped the asset protection industry in Arkansas. Act 291 and Act 293 were signed into law by Governor Sanders on March 17, 2023. Act 291 updates the Arkansas Code regarding spendthrift trusts and allows for domestic asset protection trusts. Act 293 updates the Arkansas Trust Code to allow for the decanting or appointment of trust property to another trust. These acts were passed in response to Arkansans sending their assets to other states to avail themselves of the more favorable asset protection rules in those jurisdictions. The goal of these statutes is to make Arkansas a more competitive forum for asset protection and estate planning.

The changes to spendthrift trusts and the allowance for domestic asset protection trusts shift the estate and business planning landscape in the state. By modeling Act 291 after the protection-friendly Nevada Act, Arkansas immediately becomes a more desirable jurisdiction for asset protection. Additionally, domestic asset protection trusts organized in other states that contain Arkansas property or have Arkansas settlors or trustees will now be subject to the new Arkansas statute.

Trust decanting under Act 293 creates more flexibility for trustees of Arkansas trusts. This Act is also modeled after the Nevada Act and contains many of the same trustee-friendly provisions. Trusts that are irrevocable and give the trustees discretion to distribute income and principal from the trust are eligible to decant under Act 293.

Act 291—Spendthrift Trusts and Domestic Asset Protection Trusts

Act 291 changes the way Arkansans can maintain and protect their assets from potential creditors. Domestic asset protection trusts are self-settled trusts that own assets contributed by the settlor. Creditors of these settlors cannot easily reach the assets that are contributed to these trusts. Trusts eligible for this type of protection must: (1) be irrevocable; (2) contain Arkansas property or have an Arkansas settlor or trustee; (3) not be created to hinder, delay, or defraud known creditors; and (4) limit distributions to the settlor by the discretion of a third-party trustee.

Settlors may keep the power to veto distributions by the trustee and direct trust investments. Settlors also retain the rights to the lead interests in charitable remainder trusts, qualified personal residence trusts, and grantor retained annuity trusts, as well as the right to minimum distributions from deferred compensation plans, the right to receive distributions

Brady Brown is an associate attorney with the Rose Law Firm who focuses his practice on estate planning and corporate transactions.

at the discretion of another person, and the right to use the real or personal property of the trust. Even though the current right to the property interest is retained by the settlor, a retained interest in a domestic asset protection trust is not subject to creditors of the settlor while in the hands of the trustee.

Creditors must bring claims against transfers to these trusts within two years of the trust’s creation or within six months of when the creditor should have reasonably discovered the trust, whichever is later. If the creditor’s interest is not created until after the transfer is made, the claim must be brought within two years of the transfer to the trust. Otherwise, the courts will not award a judgment to a creditor against the property in these trusts unless it was a fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act or the transfer violated a legal obligation under a contract or judgment.

This new act has numerous estate and business planning applications. Domestic asset protection trusts are beneficial to professionals who are more likely to be sued. These include physicians, dentists, real estate investors, business owners, and athletes. By placing assets that creditors are more likely to go after, like cash or investments accounts, into these trusts, settlors are able to protect their assets from future creditors. Proceeds from the sale of a business are excellent assets to place in these trusts because of the increased protection from creditors and the ability of the settlor to use the proceeds at the discretion of a third-party trustee. Assets that are given to minors or younger beneficiaries also benefit from these trusts because the assets are still usable by the beneficiary without being subject to future creditors.

Act 293—Trust Decanting

As discussed above, Act 293 increases the flexibility of trusts in the state of Arkansas by allowing trusts to be decanted into separate trusts. Trust decanting is like decanting a fine wine. A trustee may remove or modify trust provisions from an irrevocable trust by “pouring” the trust assets from an old trust into a new trust.

To decant from one trust to another, a trust must be (1) irrevocable and (2)

the trustee must have the discretion to distribute the principal and income of the trust to or for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Trusts that have taken the marital or charitable deduction and certain trusts subject to withdrawal powers by beneficiaries may not be decanted.

Eligible beneficiaries of the new trust are one or more beneficiaries of the original trust (1) to whom or for a distribution of principal or income from the original trust may be made; (2) to whom or for a distribution of principal or income may be made from the original trust upon the occurrence of a future event; or (3) both. The new trust may grant a general or limited power of appointment to its beneficiaries if they were also beneficiaries of the old trust.

Trustees decant trust property by exercising an appointment power in a signed document that is filed with the records of the original trust. While not required, trustees may petition for court approval before appointing the assets to the new trust.

Just like domestic asset protection trusts, trust decanting has a large number of practical applications. Appointing assets from an older trust to a newer trust is usually done to clarify unclear terms, replace the trustees, or convert to a new tax status. Decanting may also be used to extend the term of the trust or change the governing law. Changed circumstances since the creation of the older trust may require trust property to be decanted into a special needs trust or into several new distinct trusts for each of the beneficiaries.

Both acts will change the estate and business planning landscape in Arkansas, making the state a more competitive and desirable forum to host asset protection instruments. Estate planners and asset managers should be prepared to use these new statutes to serve their clients. ■

Arkansas Bar Association President

Joe F. Kolb

2023 Annual Award Recipients

Arkansas Bar Foundation President

Edward T. Oglesby

Arkansas Judicial Council President Judge Mackie Pierce

Outstanding Jurist Award

Chief U.S. District Judge

D. P. Marshall, Jr. Chief Judge Marshall was presented the award in recognition of exceptional competency, efficiency and integrity on the Bench and exemplary service to the administration of justice.

The Arkansas Bar Association held its 125th Annual Meeting June 14-16, 2023, in Hot Springs. For 35 years, the Association has held its Annual Meeting in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Judicial Council. For 63 years, the Arkansas Bar Foundation and Arkansas Bar Association have enjoyed a rich history of meeting as a collaborative committee to provide joint awards for outstanding contributions to the Bar. This year's joint awards were presented during the 125th Anniversary Celebration on June 14, 2023.

Outstanding Lawyer Award

Donald H. Bacon

Donald H. Bacon, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, in Little Rock was presented the award in recognition of excellence in the practice of law and outstanding contributions to the profession.

Outstanding Local Bar Associations: Craighead County Bar Association Pulaski County Bar Association Sebastian County Bar Association

Bob Edwards, The Edwards Law Firm, Little Rock, for work as Sponsorship Committee Chair

Jamie H. Jones, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Little Rock, for work as Member Value Task Force Chair

Brian M. Rosenthal, Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, for work on the Arkansas Bar Association Legal Hall of Fame

Aaron L. Squyres, Wilson Law Group, Little Rock, for work on the Program Review Task Force

Leslie Copeland, Leslie Copeland Law & Mediation, Fayetteville, for work as Family Law Section Chair

Brent J. Eubanks, Law Clerk, Pulaski County Circuit Court, Thirteenth Division, for work as ArkBar PAC Chair

Tim J. Cullen, Cullen & Co., Little Rock, for work as Governance

Drafting

Committee Chair

Sarah C. Jewell, McMath Woods P.A., Fayetteville, for work as Chief Engagement Officer

Arkansas Bar Association Presidential Awards of Excellence

Arkansas Bar Association Golden Gavel Awards

Arkansas Bar Foundation and Arkansas Bar Association Joint Awards

Christopher A. McNulty, Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, for work as Annual Meeting Co-Chair

Molly McNulty, Law Clerk to the Honorable Raymond Abramson, Arkansas Court of Appeals, for work as Annual Meeting Co-Chair

George M. Rozzell, Miller, Butler, Schneider, Pawlik & Rozzell, PLLC, Fayetteville, for work as Legislation Committee Chair

Caroline Kelley, Mitchell Williams Law Firm, Rogers, for outstanding contributions to improve the administration of justice and promote the public welfare on behalf of the Young Lawyers Section

Cara Butler, Mitchell Williams Law Firm, Little Rock, for the article "Emotional Support Animals and Access to Public Facilities"

Allan Gates, Mitchell Williams Law Firm, Little Rock, for the article "Emotional Support Animals and Access to Public Facilities"

Elizabeth James, James & Streit, Searcy, for the article "Judicial Disqualification Standard Pre-Ferguson, the Standard Post-Ferguson"

Jonathan Streit, James & Streit, Searcy, for the article "Judicial Disqualification Standard Pre-Ferguson, the Standard Post-Ferguson"

Ledley S. Jennings, L. Jennings Law PLLC, Little Rock and Magnolia, for organizing the YLS Social in Magnolia

Frank LaPorteJenner, Pulaski County Attorney’s Office, for organizing the YLS Mid Year 2.0 Social

Caroline Kelley, Mitchell Williams Law Firm, Rogers, for work on the Wills for Heroes Event

William J. Ogles, Wright Lindsey Jennings, Little Rock, for his commitment and dedication to the Young Lawyers Section

Frank C. Elcan Young Lawyer Leadership Award

Judith Ryan Gray Young Lawyer Service Award

Arkansas Bar Foundation Writing Awards

Young Lawyer Secton Awards of Excellence

Arkansas Bar Association

Golden Gavel Awards

Michael H. Crawford, of Hot Springs, began his term as President of the Arkansas Bar Foundation Board of Directors for the 2023-2024 bar year following the Annual Foundation Meeting. He earned his B.S. Degree from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and his Juris Doctorate from the UALR Bowen School of Law in Little Rock. Michael founded The Crawford Law Firm in 1990.

Michael has been a Fellow of the Arkansas Bar Foundation since 1989 and is a Sustaining Fellow. He has served the Foundation on the Board of Directors, as Secretary-Treasurer and Vice-President of the Board, as Chair of the Special Projects Committee and currently as a member of the Trust, Annual Awards and Development Committees. He is a Past President of the Garland County Bar Association and Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, and former Chair of the Arkansas Bar Association Young Lawyers’ Section. Michael has been an active leader and volunteer in Boy Scouts of America, Hot Springs Boys and Girls Club, and Big Brothers and Big Sisters Program.

Memorials and Honoraria

The Arkansas Bar Foundation acknowledges with grateful appreciation the receipt of the following memorial, honoraria and scholarship contributions received during the period April 15, 2023, through July 15, 2023.

In MeMory of JustIce W. H. (Dub) ArnolD

Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

In MeMory of WIllIAM brIDgfortH

Don A. Eilbott

Hyden, Miron & Foster, PLLC

Jeffrey and Lester McKinley

Barbara and Jeff Pence

Charles D. Roscopf

In MeMory of rAlpH cloAr

Jennifer and Randy Coleman

In MeMory of JoHn A. “JAck” DAvIs

DesIgnAteD to tHe JoHn A. “JAck” DAvIs

scHolArsHIp funD

Jack A. McNulty

In MeMory of JustIce robert “bob” DuDley

Justice

Michael R. Gott

David and Carolyn Newbern

In MeMory of JustIce J. frAnk Holt

DesIgnAteD to tHe JustIces frAnk AnD JAck Holt scHolArsHIp funD

Kim Foust Brunell

Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

Dorothy and Dan Jones

Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

In MeMory of pHIlIp e. kAplAn

Donis B. Hamilton

Rosalind and Kirby Mouser

David M. Powell

Hayden and Gordon S. Rather, Jr.

Brian Rosenthal

Carole Shermann

Judge Bill Wilson and Judge Cathi Compton

In MeMory of JuDge MIke kInArD

Betty Lou and Frank Hamlin

In MeMory of JuDge JAck lessenberry

Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

In MeMory of MArIAnne Wynne lIgon

John L. Rush

In MeMory of ronAlD A. MAy

David M. Powell

In MeMory of JuDge russell rogers

Jennifer and Randy Coleman

In MeMory of Herb rule

Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

John L. Rush

In MeMory of JAMes M. sIMpson, Jr.

Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

Cheryl and Mark Nichols

In MeMory of JuDge JoHn f. strouD, Jr.

John L. Rush

In MeMory of JoHn broDIe tHurMAn, Jr. Judges Wayne and Rita Gruber

In MeMory of JuDge rIce lee vAn AusDAll

Michael R. Gott

Donis B. Hamilton

Sally and Jim McLarty

In MeMory of JustIce robIn Wynne

Brian Rosenthal

Rex M. Terry

Michael H. Crawford Elected Arkansas Bar Foundation President

Arkansas Bar Foundation Grant Applications for Law-related Projects

Deadline: Friday, October 6, 2023

Please contact Ann Pyle to request an application apyle@arkansasbarfoundation.com

William Cecil “Bill” Bridgforth of Pine Bluff died May 11, 2023, at the age of 82. Bill attended Washington and Lee University and graduated from the University of Arkansas School of Law in 1964. Following graduation, Bill moved to Pine Bluff where he joined the law firm of Coleman, Gantt, Ramsay & Cox. Bill practiced law with the law firm for 59 years, the last 30 of which were with Shane and David. In 2005, he was awarded the C.E. Ransick Award by the Arkansas Bar Association for his dedicated service to the practice of law.

Judge Barbara Ann Griffin of Newport died April 4, 2023. Judge Griffin graduated from the University of Central Arkansas with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School. In 2005, Judge Griffin became the first African American and the first woman elected to the district judge position in Jackson County, a position she held for 16 years. She previously worked for Legal Aid of Northeast Arkansas and continued to work pro bono for those who needed her in her community until her passing. She was honored to have been selected for inclusion in the Top Attorneys of North America-2016 edition by the Who’s Who Directories.

Philip Kaplan of Little Rock died on June 23, 2023, at the age of 85. A lifelong learner and educator, Phil graduated from Harvard College in 1959 as well as University of Michigan Law School and taught both law school and friends as a teacher and student through his affiliation with LifeQuest of Arkansas. Following his true calling as a civil rights attorney and social activist, the family moved to Little Rock

in 1967 where he founded the state’s first integrated law firm with partners Richard Mays and John Walker. He later founded Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey with partners and friends Joann Maxey and Silas Brewer. Phil was recognized as one of the state’s best trial attorneys as documented by a front cover story in Super Lawyers magazine.

Letty McAdams of Dallas, Texas, died on May 21, 2023, at the age of 75. She graduated from the University of Arkansas in 1969 and earned a law degree from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law in 1978.

John Lawrence Rush of Pine Bluff died July 15, 2023, at the age of 88. He attended the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas Law School. He served in the United States Army for six months and the Arkansas Army and Air National Guard. He served as president of the Simmons First National Trust Company for over 30 years until his retirement in December 1999.

John Brodie Thurman Jr. of North Little Rock died April 29, 2023, at the age of 88. He graduated Hendrix College and Vanderbilt University, where he earned his law degree. In 1958, John returned to North Little Rock where he embarked on a career as a lawyer that spanned over 50 years.

Rice Lee VanAusdall of Harrisburg died on May 19, 2023, at the age of 88. Rice attended Arkansas State University. Rice was an officer in the United

States Army where he served three years on active duty as a paratrooper, pathfinder, and Army Ranger in the 101st Airborne. Upon his return to civilian life, Rice attended the University of Arkansas School of Law, graduating first in his class a semester early. In 1963, after law school, Carlena and he moved to Harrisburg to be near her family. Rice was admitted to the bar and began a successful 24-year private legal practice. In 1987, Rice’s love for the law led him to run for Chancery Judge. Rice retired from the bench at 74 after 22 years of service.

Ricky Everett Watson of Harrison died Saturday, June 24, 2023, at the age of 60. A graduate of Huntsville High School, Rick obtained his law degree in 1994 and founded Watson Law Firm in Harrison, with his wife, Mercedes. He was a member of the Arkansas Bar Association and the Masonic Lodge.

Justice Robin French Wynne of Little Rock died on June 21, 2023, at the age of 70. Justice Wynne was first elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2014 and re-elected in 2022 for another 8-year term. Following his graduation from Fordyce High School, he earned his degree in history from Harvard University in 1975, graduating cum laude. He received his juris doctor from the University of Arkansas School of Law. He also attended Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology. Justice Wynne’s legal career was grounded in his early work as a partner of the Wynne and Wynne Law Firm, and he served as Fordyce City Attorney, Prosecuting Attorney for the 13th Judicial District, Dallas County District Judge, Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge District 5, and as a Justice for the Arkansas Supreme Court. He also served two terms as an Arkansas state representative.

The information contained herein is provided from the members’ obituaries.

Attorney Disciplinary Actions

Final actions from April 1, 2023 –June 30, 2023, by the Committee on Professional Conduct. Summaries prepared by the Office of Professional Conduct (OPC). Full text documents are available online at http://www.arcourts. gov by entering the attorney’s name in the attorney locater feature under the “Directories” link on the home page.

SUSPENSION:

REFERRED TO DISBARMENT:

MUSGRAVES, ZACHARY ADAM, of Fayetteville, ABN: 2018201, in Committee Case No. CPC-2022-018, on a complaint before the Committee, by Findings & Order filed May 9, 2023, for violation of AR Rule 8.4(b), was referred on May 9, 2023, to disbarment proceedings to be initiated by OPC if Musgraves does not first surrender his law license.

SUSPENSION:

LANGLEY, MICHAEL WILLIAMS, of Little Rock, ABN: 94010, in Committee Case No. CPC-2022-035, on a complaint by Jason Polk, by Findings & Order filed May 5, 2023, was SUSPENDED for six months, followed by 18 months’ probation, ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.00, and assessed costs of $150.00 for violations of AR Rules 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.6(a), and 1.7(a). Langley failed to communicate with his client and simultaneously represented another client in direct competition to the client Langley already represented.

INTERIM SUSPENSION:

HARRELL, CALVIN FRANCIS, III, of Jonesboro, ABN: 2017187, in Committee Case No. CPC-2023-008, on a petition before the Committee, by Order of Interim Suspension issued May 11, 2023, was placed on Interim Suspension for allegations of criminal conduct, detailed in Craighead County court records, that posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to his clients.

TAGGART, MAURICE, of Pine Bluff, ABN: 2021042, in Committee Case No. CPC-2023-016, on a petition before

At Public Notice Agency, we have one important mission: place all legal notices for firms like yours, saving you money and time while ensuring accuracy.

Our team uses innovative technology to place your notices in qualified newspapers. We confirm scheduled publication, manage accounting, and provide you with proofs along with one invoice.

INTERESTED? EMAIL US! INFO@PUBLICNOTICEAGENCY.COM OR BY PHONE (501) 823-9002

the Committee, by Order of Interim Suspension issued June 8, 2023, was placed on Interim Suspension for allegations of criminal conduct, detailed in a felony information in Jefferson County Circuit Court, that posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to his clients.

REPRIMAND:

SKINNER, MARY ELIZABETH, of Stuttgart, ABN: 2003178, in Committee Case No. CPC-2022-034, on a complaint by Nathan Ray Blankenship, by Findings & Order filed April 10, 2023, was REPRIMANDED, ordered to pay a fine of $2,000.00, and assessed costs of $150.00, for violations of AR Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 8.4(d). Skinner failed to diligently and competently represent her client, to the irreversible detriment of the client’s interests. ■

ArkBar Job Board

ArkBar offers free job postings for employers.

Thank you to the Sponsors of the 125th Annual Meeting

In-Kind Sponsors*

CYBER THREATS?

At Pinnacle IT, we recognize the distinctive challenges encountered by law firms, and our mission is to equip your organization with state-of-the-art technology solutions that will revolutionize your operations. With our profound understanding of the legal industry and unwavering dedication to excellence, we stand as your trusted partner in transforming your IT landscape.

Count on us to streamline your firm’s processes, enhance data security, optimize workflow efficiency, and deliver innovative solutions tailored to meet the specific demands of your legal practice. With our support, you can focus on providing exceptional legal services while relying on a robust and secure IT infrastructure to propel your success.

What basic steps should you be following to make sure that your practice is protected?