Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 114
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-303 (2026)

Liability of attorneys

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person licensed to practice law in Arkansas and no partnership or corporation of Arkansas-licensed attorneys or any of its employees, partners, members, officers, or shareholders shall be liable to persons not in privity of contract with the person, partnership, or corporation for civil damages resulting from acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct in connection with professional services performed by the person, partnership, or corporation, except for:

  1. Acts, omissions, decisions, or conduct that constitutes fraud or intentional misrepresentations; or
  2. Other acts, omissions, decisions, or conduct if the person, partnership, or corporation was aware that a primary intent of the client was for the professional services to benefit or influence the particular person bringing the action. For the purposes of this subdivision (2), if the person, partnership, or corporation:
    1. Identifies in writing to the client those persons who are intended to rely on the services; and
    2. Sends a copy of the writing or similar statement to those persons identified in the writing or statement,

then the person, partnership, or corporation or any of its employees, partners, members, officers, or shareholders may be held liable only to the persons intended to so rely, in addition to those persons in privity of contract with the person, partnership, or corporation.

History. Acts 1987, No. 661, § 2.

Publisher's Notes. This section is also codified as § 16-22-310(a).

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Morrison & George, Arkansas's Privity Requirement for Attorney and Accountant Liability, 51 Ark. L. Rev. 697.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Attorneys, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 539.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Tort Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 1085.

Case Notes

Applicability.

In a negligence action, the real question was whether the property appraiser owed any legal duty to the plaintiff property owners, and the plaintiffs' reliance on §§ 4-86-101, 16-114-303, and 16-22-310 to support their proposition that privity of contract with an appraiser was not a requirement in their negligence suit was misplaced. Marlar v. Daniel, 368 Ark. 505, 247 S.W.3d 473 (2007).

Employees.

Employer attorney was not entitled to the immunity protection of this section or § 16-22-310 for her own negligence in not adequately supervising her employee, another attorney, who was suspected of dishonest conduct in his transaction with clients who were not in privity of contract with the employer attorney, as the employer attorney's negligence was not related to the performance of professional services as required under the statute, but instead involved her supervision of his conduct as his employer. Madden v. Aldrich, 346 Ark. 405, 58 S.W.3d 342 (2001).

Immunity.

Trial court properly concluded that the lawyer placed a lien on land in which he believed the landowner held an interest and that the acts were the lawful actions of an attorney representing his client; therefore, the lawyer was immune under § 16-22-310 and this section from the landowner's slander of title lawsuit. Fleming v. Cox Law Firm, 363 Ark. 17, 210 S.W.3d 866 (2005).

Pursuant to § 16-22-310 and this section, an attorney and law firm were immune from a couple's slander of title claim where there was no privity between the parties, there were no factual assertions of fraud, and it appeared that a lis pendens action to enforce a child support arrearage judgment obtained by the husband's ex-wife was simply filed in error. Fleming v. Cox Law Firm, 363 Ark. 17, 210 S.W.3d 866 (2005).

Chapter 115 Mandamus and Prohibition

Effective Dates. Acts 1991, No. 582, § 5: Mar. 18, 1991. Emergency clause provided: “It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that the requirement of holding a hearing on petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus within two to seven days of application for the writ does not promote a thorough and fair consideration of the issues in such cases; and that the interests of justice and a fair determination of the issues demand that the courts be permitted to hold the hearings, where necessary, within a reasonable time of application. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this act, being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, shall become effective immediately upon passage.”

Research References

ALR.

Availability of writ of prohibition or similar remedy against acts of public prosecutor. 16 A.L.R.4th 112.

Attorneys' fees in mandamus proceedings. 34 A.L.R.4th 457.

Am. Jur. 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mand., § 1 et seq.

63C Am. Jur. 2d, Prohib., § 1 et seq.

Ark. L. Rev.

Mandamus to Review Administrative Action in Arkansas, 11 Ark. L. Rev. 351.

Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies in Arkansas, 25 Ark. L. Rev. 397.

Gingerich, Mandamus of Unexecuted Executive Discretionary Powers, 33 Ark. L. Rev. 765.

Comment, The Writ of Prohibition in Arkansas, 36 Ark. L. Rev. 256.

C.J.S. 55 C.J.S., Mand., § 1 et seq.

72A C.J.S., Prohib., § 1 et seq.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey of Arkansas Law, Civil Procedure, 1 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 131.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2007 · leading case: Madden v. Aldrich, 58 S.W.3d 342 (Ark. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Madden v. Aldrich, 58 S.W.3d 342 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 8× “Immunity The first issue that we must address is Madden's assertion that the trial court erred in finding that she was not entitled to immunity under section 16-22-310 and its counterpart, section 16-114-303. Madden asserts that she is immune from the Aldriches' negligence claim…”
Fleming v. Cox Law Firm, 210 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 3× “1999) and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-303 . The immunity granted under these statutes is “limited to suits based on conduct in connection with professional services rendered by the attorney.”
McDonald v. Pettus, 988 S.W.2d 9 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “1 The lawyer-immunity statute is also codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-303 (Supp. 1997).”
Marlar v. Daniel, 247 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007). “Sections 16-114-303 and 16-22-310 address the liability of attorneys for civil damages.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.