[5] A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process. A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Section – Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities, Ark. R. Prof. Cond. Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities

Refusing service seems to be using procedures to harass, rather than uphold legal process.

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” Rule 3.2 – Expediting Litigation, Ark. R. Prof. Cond. 3.2

COMMENT

[1] Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Although there will be occasions when a lawyer may properly seek a postponement for personal reasons, it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar conduct is often tolerated by the bench and bar. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay. Realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.

Rule 3.2 – Expediting Litigation, Ark. R. Prof. Cond. 3.2

Besides being tacky and obnoxious, refusing service of legal documents is done to frustrate an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress. It should not be tolerated by the bench.

The documents refused were petitions for reconsideration and rehearing of an appeal. Zac White failed to file an opposition to the appeal. Then Judges Rita Gruber, Cindy Thyer and Brandon Harrison dismissed the appeal errantly on a jurisdictional issue. They ignored the jurisdictional issues that should have dismissed the appellee’s case at the lower court.

Even though attorney White did not oppose the petitions, the Court of Appeals denied the relief requested. No explanation was given.