Chandler v. Martin
433 S.W.3d 884
Ark.2014Background
- Chandler filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment seeking to disqualify Foster from ballot eligibility.
- Foster sought to invalidate Rule VII(C) as unconstitutional and to confirm his eligibility despite delinquent license fees.
- Rule VII(C) automatically suspends delinquent lawyers from practicing law without prior notice.
- Court findings showed Foster was delinquent on multiple years but remained licensed during those periods.
- Trial court concluded Foster met Amendment 80’s six-year licensure requirement and denied Chandler's petition.
- Appellants challenged, and the court also addressed due-process implications of automatic suspensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Foster unlicensed under Rule VII(C) for Amendment 80 eligibility? | Chandler: Foster was effectively unlicensed due to automatic suspensions. | Foster: remains a licensed attorney for Amendment 80 purposes. | Foster remained licensed; eligibility upheld. |
| Does automatic suspension without notice violate due process? | Chandler: Rule VII(C) deprives due process. | Foster/Steen: Rule VII(C) valid. | Rule VII(C) unconstitutional to the extent it suspends without due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Martin, 433 S.W.3d 896 (Ark. 2014) (eligibility under Amendment 80 despite automatic suspension)
- Arnold v. Kemp, 813 S.W.2d 770 (Ark. 1991) (professional licenses as protected property interests; due process)
- Willner v. Comm., on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1963) (due process before excluding from practicing law)
- Donovan v. Sup. Ct. Comm. on Prof. Conduct, 290 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2009) (practice of law as a privilege with due process limits)
- Arnold v. State, 292 S.W.3d 288 (Ark. 2009) (due process considerations in licensing and rights)