Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-401 (2026)

Grounds for removal or suspension

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

Any attorney who is guilty of any felony or infamous crime, of improperly retaining his client's money, of any malpractice, deceit, or misdemeanor in his professional capacity, is an habitual drunkard, or is guilty of any ungentlemanly conduct in the practice of his profession may be removed or suspended from practice, upon charges exhibited against him, and proceedings thereon had as provided in this subchapter.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 15, § 12; C. & M. Dig., § 610; Pope's Dig., § 650; A.S.A. 1947, § 25-401.

Case Notes

Discretion of Court.

The trial court may remove or suspend an attorney, and its discretion in so doing will not be reversed unless abused. Maloney v. State ex. rel. Prosecuting Att'y, 182 Ark. 510, 32 S.W.2d 423 (1930). See McGehee v. State, 182 Ark. 603, 32 S.W.2d 308 (1930).

Due Process.

The circuit court has the inherent power to disbar an attorney who makes a personal attack upon the judge for his action as such; but the attorney is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in defense, the usual practice being to make charges in writing against the attorney and issue a rule upon him to show cause why he should not be disbarred. Beene v. State, 22 Ark. 149 (1860).

Sufficiency of Evidence.

Where an attorney sold bonds of his clients, for theft of which they were at the time being prosecuted, the action of the court in suspending the attorney from practice for one year instead of disbarring him was not an abuse of discretion in view of his previous good conduct and professed intention to apply the proceeds on the judgment against his client. State ex rel. Greene County Bar Ass'n v. Huddleston, 173 Ark. 686, 293 S.W. 353 (1927).

Evidence that attorney concealed receipt of checks payable to clients in settlement of their claims, that he indorsed and deposited the drafts without clients' authorization and that he drew on the account for payment of personal expenses, was sufficient to support a disbarment order. Weems v. Supreme Court Comm. on Professional Conduct, 257 Ark. 673, 523 S.W.2d 900 (1975).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Am. Abstract & Title Co. v. Rice, 186 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. 2004).
Am. Abstract & Title Co. v. Rice, 186 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 2× “1999) and § 16-22-401 through 414 (Repl.1999). Amendment 28 clearly vested exclusive power to regulate the practice of law in the supreme court, but those statutory provisions *713 that did not conflict with the court's exclusive duty and authority were allowed to continue to…”
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.