skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Arkansas Legal Ethics

VI. PUBLIC SERVICE

6.1   Rule 6.1 Pro Bono Public Service

6.1:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

6.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

Arkansas has not adopted the 1993 amendment to Model Rule 6.1. The Arkansas Rule remains the same as the Model Rule adopted in 1983.

6.1:102      Model Code Comparison

The comparison accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court is identical to the comparison in the Model Rules.

6.1:200   Lawyer's Moral Obligation to Engage in Public Interest Legal Service

6.2   Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments

6.2:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

6.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

The Arkansas Rule is the same as the Model Rule.

6.2:102      Model Code Comparison

The comparison accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court is identical to the comparison in the Model Rules.

6.2:200   Duty to Accept Court Appointments Except for Good Cause

A statute that limited attorney fees awarded to counsel appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants was held unconstitutional in Arnold v. Kemp, 306 Ark. 294, 813 S.W. 2d 770 (1991). However, appointed counsel are not compensated on the same basis that they would be by private clients. See 1.5:320.

Ar. Code 16-92-108(d), which provides that a court shall not appoint an attorney who has not taken a law school course in criminal law within twenty-five years and who does not regularly practice criminal law to represent an indigent criminal defendant, unconstitutionally interferes with the judiciary's supervision of the legal provision and violates the express separation of powers doctrine. Ball v. Roberts, 291 Ark. 84, 722 S.W.2d 829 (1987). The courts, either by rule or on an individual basis, determine who is competent to represent indigent criminal defendants.

When necessary to assist a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Arkansas federal courts may appoint counsel in civil cases by random selection from a list of all actively practicing private attorneys. See Rule B-4, Local Rules of Eastern and Western Districts. However, the federal court has concluded that it lacked "inherent power" to compel an attorney to assist a pro se litigant in a civil rights action. Nor was the court willing to "request" an attorney to volunteer his time. Colbert v. Rickmon, 747 F. Supp. 518 (W.D. Ark. 1990). In some instances a court may have coercive power to require attorneys to represent parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See, for example, Scott v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 943 F. 2d 17 (8th Cir. 1991).

6.3   Rule 6.3 Membership in Legal Services Organization

6.3:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

6.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

The Arkansas Rule is the same as the Model Rule.

6.3:102      Model Code Comparison

The comparison accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court is identical to the comparison in the Model Rules.

6.3:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in a Legal Services Organization

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic.

6.4   Rule 6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests

6.4:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

6.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

The Arkansas Rule is the same as the Model Rule.

6.4:102      Model Code Comparison

The comparison accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court is identical to the comparison in the Model Rules.

6.4:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in Law Reform Organizations

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic.

6.5   Rule 6.5 Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Service Programs

6.5:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

MR 6.5 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

Rule 6.5 is a new Rule in response to the Commission's concern that a strict application of the conflict-of-interest rules may be deterring lawyers from serving as volunteers in programs in which clients are provided short-term limited legal services under the auspices of a nonprofit organization or a court-annexed program. The paradigm is the legal-advice hotline or pro se clinic, the purpose of which is to provide short-term limited legal assistance to persons of limited means who otherwise would go unrepresented.

6.5:101      Model Rule Comparison

Arkansas has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:200   Scope of Rule

Arkansas has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:300   Special Conflict of Interest Rule

Arkansas has not adopted the new model rule.