Kelly v. Martin

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a circuit court ruling that Timothy D. Fox remained eligible to run for circuit judge despite failing to pay his annual attorney license fee for approximately 45 days. The court held that an automatic suspension from the practice of law for nonpayment limited Fox’s privilege to practice but did not terminate his license, so he satisfied Amendment 80’s requirement that a circuit judge be a licensed attorney for at least six years immediately preceding assuming office. The court also rejected Kelly’s res judicata argument.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court of Arkansas may hear the appeal because it pertains to elections and election procedure.
2. An attorney who is automatically suspended from practicing law for failing to pay the annual license fee remains a licensed attorney because the suspension limits the privilege to practice law but does not terminate the attorney's license or remove the attorney's name from the list of licensed attorneys.
3. Fox was eligible to be a candidate for circuit judge because he remained a licensed attorney during the forty-five-day period in which he was suspended from practicing law and had been admitted to the bar more than six years before assuming office.
4. Res judicata did not bar adjudication of Fox's eligibility because Fox's eligibility had not been litigated in the other case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Arkansas Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over the expedited appeal concerning Fox's eligibility to appear on the ballot.
2. Whether an attorney automatically suspended from the practice of law for failing to pay the annual license fee remains a licensed attorney under amendment 80, section 16(B) of the Arkansas Constitution.
3. Whether Fox was eligible to be a candidate for circuit judge despite the forty-five-day suspension for delinquent payment of his annual license fee.
4. Whether res judicata barred the circuit court from deciding Fox's eligibility because another circuit court had considered similar issues involving a different candidate.

Disposition

affirmed