Campbell v. Asbury Automotive, Inc., 381 S.W.3d 21

Palasacks filed a class action against Asbury alleging a documentary/administrative fee for document preparation was illegal and violated the ADTPA, and seeking unjust enrichment.
The circuit court certified a broad documentary-fee class; it later granted Campbell summary judgment that the fee involved unauthorized practice of law and was illegal, and immunized Asbury for certain periods under good-faith reliance.
Campbell sought to add a breach-of-fiduciary-duty theory related to the documentary fee; the circuit court denied class certification for that claim and later denied the amendment, invoking one-way intervention.
Campbell later sought class certification on financing-fee claims; the circuit court denied certification for lack of typicality, predominance, and superiority.
Asbury cross-appealed, arguing the documentary fee did not constitute unauthorized practice of law, that Asbury did not owe fiduciary duties to customers, and that good-faith reliance should apply under Act 1600 of 2001.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the ADTPA can address nonlawyer unauthorized practice of law, that the class should be evaluated on common issues before individualized ones, and that good-faith reliance analysis did not shield Asbury; it remanded for further proceedings on several issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADTPA applies to UPL by nonlawyers	Campbell: ADTPA covers the documentary-fee UPL by Asbury.	Asbury: Stoops bars application of ADTPA to the practice of law by nonlawyers.	ADTPA can apply to nonlawyer UPL; summary judgment reversed/remanded
Amendment to add breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim post-certification	Campbell: amendments should be allowed; one-way intervention not applicable.	Asbury: amendments post-certification are improper per Farm Bureau.	Circuit court did not abuse its discretion; Farm Bureau controls
Financing-fee class certification	Campbell: common questions predominate; typicality and superiority established.	Asbury: varying lender arrangements defeat predominance and typicality.	Circuit court abused its discretion; reverse and remand for certification analysis
Unjust enrichment when contract exists	Campbell: unjust enrichment may lie where unlawful fees are charged despite contract.	Asbury: no unjust enrichment where a valid contract exists, with limited exceptions.	Contract does not automatically bar unjust enrichment; reversal and remand
Good-faith reliance defense to UPL claim	Campbell: cannot shield from liability despite reliance on statutes.	Asbury: Act 1600/WhiteMcGhee doctrines permit reliance.	Asbury not entitled to good-faith reliance; cross-appeal affirmed

Ark. Auto. Grp., Inc. v. Palasack, 366 Ark. 601 (Ark. 2006) (affirmed class certification regarding documentary fee)
Preston v. Stoops, 373 Ark. 591 (Ark. 2008) (ADTPA does not apply to the practice of law)
Farm Bureau Policy Holders v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Arkansas, 335 Ark. 285 (Ark. 1998) (post-certification amendments may be limited to avoid repeated interlocutory appeals)
Creekmore v. Izard, 236 Ark. 558 (Ark. 1963) (limits on nonlawyers filling in blanks under strict parameters; public convenience factors)
Suggs v. Pope County Bar Ass'n, 274 Ark. 250 (Ark. 1981) (outside use of standard forms permissible under safeguards; practice of law concept)
Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Ass’n of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494 (Ark. 1959) (completion of forms can constitute practice of law)
McGhee v. Arkansas Board of Collection Agencies, 372 Ark. 136 (Ark. 2008) (good-faith reliance considerations under statutory framework)
White v. Arkansas Capital Corp./Diamond State Ventures, 365 Ark. 200 (Ark. 2006) (citizens may rely on statutes until repealed or declared unconstitutional)