Home

     The question I am most often asked is what's it like being on the Supreme Court? What's it really like? On August 29, 2004, Dahlia Lithwick had this to say about the United States Supreme Court in the New York Times:
         The Supreme Court is by far the most mysterious branch of government - its      members glimpsed only rarely, like Bigfoot, crashing through the forest at      twilight. The court is the one branch that operates in near secrecy - no      cameras, no tape recorders, no explanations, no press conferences, rare      interviews, no review by other branches. The most powerful branch is also the      most enigmatic. They love it that way.
     The same description could also be written about the Arkansas Supreme Court, even though the Justices come out of their caves every eight years to run for reelection. And that led me to recall what former Chief Justice Dub Arnold used to say. His description of the Arkansas Supreme Court was more basic. He said the Supreme Court was like a nursing home. It's lonely. You stay in your room. No one comes to visit. The telephone doesn't ring. Every now and then the Justices wander out into the hallway, and it was his job to take them by the arm and lead them back to their offices so they would stay out of trouble.
     The second question most often posed to me is why are there so many four-to-three decisions by the court? Is this indicative of an endemic failure to get along and reach consensus? That reminded me of what former Chief Justice Brad Jesson said. His quip was the Supreme Court members were so contentious and cantankerous that the vote was usually four-to-three on where to eat lunch. The truth of the matter is that there are not that many close decisions when the body of the court's work is viewed as a whole. But these twin questions planted a seed and after more than fourteen years on the court, it seemed a good time to reflect on the job and, as a corollary, on what monumental changes have transpired over the last decade and a half.

Opinions
     The Arkansas Supreme Court is renowned nationwide for its heavy caseload and for handing down its opinions in an expeditious manner. Decades ago, the court determined that it would hear all cases en banc and strive for a fast turnaround in decisions after the date of submission.¹ This was in deference to the will of the Bar which opted for quick resolution of disputes as opposed to more comprehensive opinions, which would cause delay. Today, according to Leslie Steen, Clerk of the Supreme Court, the court on the average hands down seventy percent of its opinions within two weeks of submission, and ninety-five percent within four weeks. Each Justice writes approximately thirty to thirty-five signed opinions a year. Some Justices write, in addition, as many as ten or more dissents and concurrences. This compares to the United States Supreme Court where each Justice writes about nine majority opinions a year, but where the issues for the most part are much more complex and comprehensive. Still, the work of our court has always been impressive. Since becoming a first impression court in 1998, the opinions written are fewer; yet, because the cases now involve issues of first impression and development of the law, they are more difficult.

Justices
     But if deciding cases and issuing opinions is the first and foremost duty of the court, performing its administrative tasks has grown exponentially in time required and significance. The Arkansas Constitution gives the Supreme Court authority over the practice of law as well as general superintending control over all courts in the state. This administrative responsibility would be too much for the Chief Justice alone to meet, and for that reason, administrative work regarding lawyers and judges such as the oversight of Bar examinations, professional and judicial conduct, continuing legal education, rules for criminal and civil practice, and instructions of the law for trials is spread among the six associate Justices.² It is also an associate Justice who makes the decision of which cases the Supreme Court will review and whether oral argument is needed.
     Where the Chief Justice assumes additional duties is in working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, and specifically its director, J.D. Gingerich, with respect to the 115 circuit judges and the 116 district judges and with the General Assembly as a point guard and spokesperson for the court. It was estimated that in 1998, the Arkansas Chief Justice spent about twenty percent of his or her time on administrative matters. See Flango & Rotterman, Appellate Court Procedures, (National Center of State Courts 1998). In other states, where the Chief Justice writes fewer opinions, that percentage can be as high as ninety percent. See id. Other Justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court probably spend ten to fifteen percent of their time on administrative matters. Our Chief Justice elect, Jim Hannah, has shown an inclination to spend an even higher percentage of his time on administrative work. For example, between July 16, 2004, and December 17, 2004, he spent on the average two days a week visiting judges, legislators, and court personnel in communities throughout the state discussing court business and legislative proposals.
     In addition to this shared responsibility among the Justices for administration, the Chief Justice in Arkansas does not brief the Justices on every case in conference or assign cases to the Justices to be written, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist does, for example, for the United States Supreme Court. In Arkansas, cases are assigned to individual Justices by the Supreme Court Clerk under a system of rotating numbers, and the "main" Justice briefs the conference on his or her case. There are four categories for assignment: capital murder cases, cases to be orally argued, criminal cases, and civil cases. If the assigned Justice for a particular case is in the majority, he or she writes the opinion for the court.
     For these reasons, Arkansas is said to have a "weak" Chief Justice system. But, again, where the Chief Justice makes a considerable mark is as a lightening rod for problems involving administrative matters for the circuit and district courts and by being the spokesperson for the court and advocate for judicial legislation before the General Assembly. Even in these matters, including budgets for Bar dues and legislative appropriations, the Chief Justice counsels with the full court and routinely advises the court on all developments.

Appellate Practice
     There have been several sea changes in the court's procedure for hearing cases over the last decade and a half. In 1997, under former Justice David Newbern's direction, and by per curiam order, we converted from an appellate court that heard only appeals in certain categories of cases (for example, the Supreme Court only used to take appeals in cases dealing with life and death sentences, wills, torts, and statutory interpretation) to a true certiorari court where we now take appeals in all cases of public significance and cases of first impression where development of the law is necessary, irrespective of what legal category is involved. This change made all the sense in the world because prior to 1997, the Supreme Court was not taking direct appeals for several categories of cases, like property and contract cases, and even espoused a policy that the court of appeals might be wrong in a case but that, by itself, was not grounds for review. See Moose v. Gregory, 267 Ark. 86, 590 S.W.2d 662 (1979).
     Other changes, while not as sweeping, have had a major impact on appellate lawyers and our court. Whether cases would be orally argued shifted in 1997 from being a matter of right available upon counsel's demand to being a matter left to the discretion of the court. The day for oral arguments also was changed from Monday to Thursday, thus safeguarding the weekends for attorneys and Justices alike. For decades, the weekends had been used for cramming and preparation by the participants.
     But perhaps no change was as welcome by the Bar as liberalizing the sanction for a defective Abstract in an appellant's brief. Prior to 2001, violation of the Abstract rule (Supreme Court Rule 4-2) had meant an automatic affirmance in favor of the appellee. During my first ten years on the court, strict enforcement of Rule 4-2 was an article of faith. Yet the hue and cry from the Bar was so great, that a campaign was mounted by the Arkansas Bar Association to convert to an Appendix system, which had less draconian consequences. See John Watkins & Price Marshall, A Modest Proposal: Simplifying Arkansas Appellate Procedure by Abolishing the Abstract Requirement, 53 ARK. L. REV. 37 (2000). This is the system that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit uses. Our court had previously experimented with the Appendix system, unsuccessfully I might add, in 1989 and 1990.
     What our court decided to do was neither adhere to the Abstract requirement then in effect nor adopt the Appendix system. Instead, a hybrid of sorts was created where copies of essential pleadings and documents were required to be included in an Addendum to the brief. The Abstract itself was limited to an abstract of pertinent oral testimony. Most significantly, however, the draconian affirmance for a defective Abstract was eliminated, and counsel are now permitted fifteen days to correct a material defect in the Abstract and Addendum requirements. See Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3). The collective sigh of relief from the Bar was almost palpable.
     Other procedural pitfalls, which resulted in automatic affirmances, have likewise been eliminated. Those pitfalls had been highlighted in several articles. See, e.g., Leon Holmes, Pitfalls of Appellate Practice: Avoiding the Serbonian Bog, ARKANSAS LAWYER (Summer 2000); Gerry Shultze, What's Wrong With Appellate Law in Arkansas, ARKANSAS LAWYER (Fall 1996). One example of a trap that has been removed is the amendment to both our civil and criminal rules that a notice of appeal filed before entry of judgment is now effective. See Ark. R. App. P. ­ Civ. 4(a); Ark. R. App. P.­ Crim. 2(b)(2). Another example is that motions for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence and not ruled upon by the trial court are now deemed denied by virtue of the fact that the trial judge continued the trial, so that the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for appeal. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(e); Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).
     In short, the whole complexion of practice at the appellate level has changed dramatically in the last fifteen years.

Bricks and Mortar
     But practice aside, without question, the addition of the west wing to the Justice Building which boasts a magnificent, classical entrance and houses the Supreme Court, the Clerk's office, and the Office of Professional Programs easily ranks first as the court's most dramatic physical change. It was high time. Our courtroom built in 1975 has always been one of the truly superior courtrooms in the country, but the original Justice building itself, built in 1957, was jerry-built due to lack of funds and had always been a security risk and fraught with myriad maintenance problems. Now that original building has also been refurbished and enhanced.
     Chief Justices Jack Holt, Brad Jesson, and Dub Arnold led the charge in obtaining funding for the new wing and the enhancement of the old building. But the whole court over the two years of construction was instrumental in assuring that what was built was as majestic as the architects had promised and of the highest quality, including limestone, copper roof, and granite floors.
     That dream was realized. The west wing was completed in 2000 at a cost of $7.6 million. According to one Justice Building wag, viewing the new addition, the old box structure, and the rotunda, which is the courtroom, called to mind the Starship Enterprise. On October 1, 2004, the Supreme Court proudly hosted Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, in the conference room of the new addition for lunch and discussion.

Admission on Motion
     Of utmost significance to Bar Membership was this court's decision to permit admission to practice on motion, effective October 1, 2004. Now Arkansas lawyers may practice in other states that have comparable admission requirements and, similarly, lawyers in those states may practice in Arkansas without retaking the Bar exam. Implementation and oversight of candidates for admission by motion, including whether they graduated from accredited law schools and satisfy character-and-fitness reviews, will fall to the Board of Law Examiners. Attorneys admitted to practice on motion will be subject to the same rules and discipline as Arkansas attorneys under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This change recognized the mobility of contemporary society and the impact of the internet on the practice of law, while maintaining a degree of control over those practicing law in our state.

New Programs and Rule Updates
     Significant new programs have been created by the court at the request of the Arkansas Bar Association. A prime example is the Arkansas Lawyers Assistance Program, which was adopted on January 1, 2001, and which was established to mentor and treat lawyers and judges suffering from chemical abuse or depression. The Arkansas Access to Justice Commission to facilitate legal representation for the impoverished and the Supreme Court Professional Practicum Committee to emphasize civility in the practice are two other recent examples.
     Much effort has always been taken to keep our rules current and to implement change. During my tenure on the court, the Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct for Arkansas lawyers have been overhauled; the Judicial Code of Conduct has been amended significantly twice (in 1993 and 2001); Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, which requires non partisan judicial elections and the merger of law and equity in our circuit courts, has been implemented through an administrative order and rule changes; goals for establishing district courts as the third tier of the judiciary have been set by per curiam order; and a complete revision of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct is underway.
     But back to the initial question: What's it like to be on the court? One facet of that question is what does it take to be a good Justice. Nick Patton of Texarkana told me recently, and I paraphrase, that what he wanted in a Justice was a person who is not wedded to a particular agenda, but who has a good set of values and who will work hard to make the right decision, based on the law and the facts. I think that's it in a nutshell. Most people do not want a Justice who has an agenda, political or otherwise. That is especially true today, when single issue groups have mushroomed and litmus tests are becoming more and more commonplace.
     The Supreme Court may be the silent branch of government, though perhaps not as quiet as it was in 1991 when I first joined the court, but its role in our system of government is powerful and crucial. That role can only be performed by highly capable and qualified men and women. The legendary Justice George Rose Smith once told me that the grand total of people who encouraged him to run for the Supreme Court was two. In my case, I recall one person suggesting I run. The late Judge Richard S. Arnold was wont to say that he held the Arkansas Supreme Court in the highest regard. That high regard will only continue so long as good and talented lawyers are encouraged by members of the Bar to run and to fill these judicial positions.

Endnotes
1. For a brief period between 1976 and 1980, decisions were decided by
    three-judge panels, but the procedure was ultimately discarded with the     creation of the court of appeals in 1979.
2. For example, Justice Glaze is liaison for the Professional Conduct Committee     and Criminal Instructions Committee. Justice Corbin is liaison for the Civil     Instructions Committee and the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.     Justice Imber is the liaison for the Civil Practice Committee and the Client     Security Fund Committee. Justice Thornton is liaison for Continuing Legal     Education and spearheaded the creation of the new Supreme Court     Professional Practicum Committee to emphasize civility in the law practice.     Justice Hannah is liaison for the Automation Committee and was instrumental     in creating the new Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. I am the liaison     for the Board of Law Examiners and Criminal Practice Committee. This list is     far from exhaustive. At this writing, the Chief Justice is Betty Dickey.