Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-206 (2026)
Entitlement to practice
No person shall be licensed or permitted to practice law in any of the courts of record of this state until he has been admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of this state, and every person so admitted shall be entitled to practice in all the courts of this state.
History. Civil Code, § 760; Acts 1873, No. 88, § 1 [760], p. 213; 1917, No. 361, § 1, p. 1786; C. & M. Dig., § 598; Acts 1929, No. 32, § 1; Pope's Dig., § 638; A.S.A. 1947, § 25-103.
Publisher's Notes. For exclusion of certain persons from provisions of this section, see Publisher's Note to § 16-22-202.
Case Notes
In General.
Only the Supreme Court can license persons to practice law. McGehee v. State, 182 Ark. 603, 32 S.W.2d 308 (1930).
The court did not deny assistance of counsel to the plaintiff when it did not allow two non-attorneys to represent him in court. Hooker v. Deere Credit Servs., Inc., 62 Ark. App. 293, 971 S.W.2d 267 (1998).
Where couple's attorneys admitted that they were licensed in Oklahoma, but not Arkansas, they were unauthorized to practice law in Arkansas and the complaint they filed on behalf of the couple was properly dismissed. Preston v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Sciences, 354 Ark. 666, 128 S.W.3d 430 (2003).
Trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the answer filed on behalf of defendant was a nullity under Ark. R. Civ. P. 11(a) and this section as it was not signed by defendant or a person authorized to practice law in Arkansas. Defendant's mother was not authorized to sign the answer on his behalf, and there was nothing in the record to show that she held a valid power of attorney. Because no valid answer was timely filed, a default judgment should have been entered in favor of plaintiff. White v. Clay, 2013 Ark. App. 166 (2013).
Admission Pro Hac Vice.
Where appellants' attorneys, who were licensed in Oklahoma but not in Arkansas, filed appellants' medical malpractice complaint on the last day of the limitations period but did not file motions for admission pro hac vice until eight months later, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint; since Ark. R. Admis. Bar. XIV required that the pro hac vice motions be filed before the attorneys practiced law in Arkansas, the complaint was a nullity and, thus, no valid complaint was filed within the limitations period. Preston v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Sciences, 354 Ark. 666, 128 S.W.3d 430 (2003).
License.
It is illegal to practice law in Arkansas without a license. All City Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. McGraw Hill Info. Sys. Co., 295 Ark. 520, 750 S.W.2d 395 (1988).
After trial court entered order finding that child was a member of a family in need of services the father attempted to appeal on the child's behalf but he was not a licensed attorney who could represent the child on an appeal, and the matter was not a final order. Bass v. State, 93 Ark. App. 411, 219 S.W.3d 697 (2005).
Out-of-State Attorney.
Appeal from a decision in a workers' compensation case was dismissed as untimely where an attorney from Texas filed notices of appeal on behalf of an insurer since he failed to comply with Ark. R. Admis. Bar XIV until later. As such, the pleadings were rendered a nullity. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Hickok, 370 Ark. 41, 257 S.W.3d 43 (2007).
Pro Se Appearances.
Appellant, who appeared pro se, but tendered a motion on behalf of other appellants, is not a licensed attorney, may not practice law in Arkansas, and may not represent other appellants in this case. Abel v. Kowalski, 323 Ark. 201, 913 S.W.2d 788 (1996).
Because appellant, who was appearing pro se, filed motions on behalf of himself and other parties in the lawsuit, a motion to dismiss the appeal as to all parties besides appellant was granted because he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Davidson Props., LLC v. Summers, 368 Ark. 283, 244 S.W.3d 674 (2006).
Cited: Feldman v. State Bd. of Law Exmrs., 438 F.2d 699 (8th Cir. 1971); Taylor v. Safly, 276 Ark. 541, 637 S.W.2d 578 (1982); SMG 1054, Inc. v. Thompson, 2014 Ark. App. 149 (2014); SMG 1054, Inc. v. Thompson, 2014 Ark. App. 524, 443 S.W.3d 574 (2014).