Summary
The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed James W. Stanley's appeal from a reciprocal suspension imposed by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct because the governing procedures did not provide for an appeal from that type of proceeding. The court granted mandamus relief, holding that Stanley was entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge the applicability of the reciprocal-discipline rule. It further held that the rule did not apply because the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs were not jurisdictions or disciplinary authorities regulating the practice of law, and directed that the suspension order be declared null and void and Stanley reinstated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Stanley had a right to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court from the Committee's reciprocal suspension imposed under section 14 of the Procedures.
- Whether section 14 required a proceeding in which Stanley could challenge its applicability to his circumstances.
- Whether mandamus was available to compel relief where the Committee applied section 14 to suspensions imposed by the SSA and VA.
- Whether the SSA and VA qualified as a tribunal or corresponding disciplinary authority of another jurisdiction under section 14.
Holdings
- The Procedures did not provide an appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court from the Committee's decision to impose a reciprocal suspension under section 14, and section 12 did not apply because no public hearing occurred.
- Section 14's notice and summary-proceeding requirements entitled Stanley to be heard on whether section 14 applied to his circumstances.
- Mandamus was proper because Stanley showed a clear and certain right to relief and had no other adequate remedy.
- Section 14 did not apply because Stanley had not been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in another state, and the SSA and VA were not tribunals or corresponding disciplinary authorities of another jurisdiction within section 14.
Key quotations
“"A lawyer's right to practice his profession is a valuable privilege, conferred in the first instance by this court and not to be taken from him without notice and a hearing as provided by law."” (653)
“The Committee thus exceeded its authority by applying section 14's provisions for reciprocal suspension to an administrative agency that is not a state or other jurisdiction or tribunal vested with the ultimate authority to license and discipline attorneys in the practice of law.” (654)
“Appeal dismissed; petition for writ of mandamus granted.” (654)
Factual background
The Social Security Administration suspended Stanley for five years from representing claimants before it, and the Department of Veterans Affairs cancelled his accreditation to represent claimants. The Committee treated those agency actions as reciprocal discipline under section 14 of the Arkansas Procedures and imposed a five-year suspension of Stanley's Arkansas law license. Neither agency had suspended or disbarred Stanley from the practice of law or possessed ultimate authority to license and discipline attorneys.
Procedural history
Panel B imposed a five-year reciprocal suspension based on suspensions or restrictions imposed by the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs. Stanley sought reconsideration and a de novo hearing before Panel A, but Panel A denied relief for lack of jurisdiction. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the governing Procedures did not authorize an appeal from a reciprocal suspension, but granted mandamus and directed the Committee to vacate the suspension and reinstate Stanley.
Remand instructions
The Committee was directed to declare its April 24, 2007 reciprocal-suspension order null and void and to reinstate Stanley to the practice of law.