Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV-22-124 |
| Citation | 2022 Ark. 146,646 S.W.3d 361 |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY and Stephen E. Goldman, Appellants v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Little Rock, by: E. B. Chiles IV and R. Ryan Younger, for appellant.
Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, by: Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry, El Dorado; and Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, Little Rock, by: Lucas Rowan, for appellee.
Appellants, The Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers") and Stephen E. Goldman, appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order disqualifying Goldman from further participation as Travelers’ counsel in a suit filed by appellee, the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas ("the Board"). For reversal, appellants argue that the circuit court erred by (1) revoking Goldman's pro hac vice admission and (2) excluding unvaccinated jurors from the venire. We reverse and remand in part and dismiss in part.
On August 31, 2020, the Board, acting on behalf of the University of Arkansas System, including the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ("the University"), filed suit against Travelers for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and bad faith arising out of Travelers’ denial of the University's insurance claim. The Board filed a first amended complaint on October 14, 2020, a second amended complaint on August 9, 2021, and a third amended complaint on November 9, 2021. The Board alleged that it was entitled to benefits under its all-risk commercial property insurance policy with Travelers for losses and damages it suffered during the coronavirus pandemic and that no policy exclusion defeated coverage.
Goldman, an out-of-state attorney representing Travelers, filed a motion for admission pro hac vice, which was granted on October 15, 2020. Travelers filed an answer denying the material allegations in the Board's complaint, and the parties proceeded with discovery. At a pretrial hearing on January 31, 2022, the circuit court explained the procedures it had put in place to address COVID-19-related guidelines and concerns during the upcoming trial, which was scheduled for March 8, 2022. The court indicated that it was not going to require the wearing of masks in the courtroom and therefore had excused anyone from the jury pool who was not fully vaccinated. The court then stated, "[S]o that's what you've got for your jury panel and your pool, in case whoever doesn't prevail on the jury side—in case they want to make some argument that it was not a jury of their peers or something that was unconstitutional, that's what the Court has done." Neither party objected to the circuit court's procedures at that time.
On February 18, 2022, Travelers filed a motion objecting to the circuit court's exclusion of unvaccinated jurors from the jury pool. Travelers argued that a jury representative of the community should be selected without regard to COVID-19 vaccination status and that the exclusion of unvaccinated jurors violated Travelers’ rights under the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. In addition, Travelers asserted that the circuit court's rationale of requiring vaccination in the place of wearing masks was inconsistent with the public-health guidelines and this court's directive to follow such guidelines. Travelers attached multiple exhibits to its motion, such as articles from various publications as well as a December 13, 2021 email from the circuit court to counsel of record in which the circuit court set forth the special protocols in place for jury trials during the first quarter of 2022, including the vaccination requirement for jurors and all in-person participants.
The circuit court entered an order on February 22, 2022, denying Travelers’ motion. Noting that the motion was filed more than two months after its December 2021 email to counsel and more than two weeks after the pretrial conference, the court found that the motion was "untimely, dilatory and was filed for the purpose of seeking a delay in the trial of this case." Further, the court ruled that Goldman's pro hac vice admission was revoked because several of the exhibits filed in support of Travelers’ motion contained external hyperlinks to websites in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 21, Section 9. The circuit court stated that these violations had "the ability to affect the integrity of the entire Arkansas judicial electronic filing system" and were "substantial and material violations of the Administrative Orders of the Arkansas Supreme Court." Remaining local counsel were ordered to immediately remove all offending materials from their electronic filing and were given leave to file replacement exhibits, which Travelers did.
On February 24, 2022, appellants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the circuit court's ruling disqualifying Goldman from further representing Travelers in this case. Appellants also filed with this court an emergency motion for stay of the circuit court's order and the proceedings below, which we granted on February 28, 2022. On March 1, 2022, after the partial record had been filed with this court and our stay had been issued, the circuit court rescinded the portion of its previous order that revoked Goldman's pro hac vice admission and stated that Goldman would be allowed to participate in the upcoming trial. Appellants then filed a motion for clarification of our order granting a stay, and we granted that motion on March 2, 2022, clarifying that our February 28 stay applied to all proceedings in the case.
On appeal, appellants first argue that the circuit court erred by revoking Goldman's pro hac vice admission. "An order which disqualifies an attorney from further participation in the case" is immediately appealable pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a)(8) (2021). The Board claims that the revocation of an out-of-state attorney's pro hac vice admission is not a disqualification under Rule 2(a)(8) and that this court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue in an interlocutory appeal. We disagree. "Disqualification" is defined as "[s]omething ... that prevents a lawyer from representing a party." Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2014) ( that "disqualify" means to "deprive of a power, right, or privilege"). The circuit court's order revoking Goldman's pro hac vice admission clearly prevented him from representing Travelers, and we therefore have jurisdiction to review this ruling.
The Board also contends that the disqualification issue is moot because the circuit court rescinded its March 1 ruling revoking Goldman's pro hac vice admission. As appellants assert, however, the circuit court had lost jurisdiction to enter this subsequent order. Appellants appealed the circuit court's February 22 order and filed an emergency motion for stay pending the appeal, which we granted on February 28. On March 2, we clarified that our February 28 stay order applied to all proceedings in the circuit court. Accordingly, the circuit court's March 1 order is of no effect, and the issue of Goldman's revocation is not moot.
We have stated that disqualification of an attorney is a drastic measure that should be imposed only when clearly required by the circumstances. Helena Country Club v. Brocato , 2018 Ark. 16, 535 S.W.3d 272. This court reviews a circuit court's decision to disqualify an attorney, as well as a ruling on a motion for admission to practice pro hac vice, under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. ; Tobacco Superstore, Inc. v. Darrough , 362 Ark. 103, 207 S.W.3d 511 (2005). An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court exercises its discretion thoughtlessly and without due consideration. Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock , 2021 Ark. 7, 615 S.W.3d 706. We have also held that an abuse of discretion may be manifested by an erroneous interpretation of the law. Park Apartments at Fayetteville, LP v. Plants , 2018 Ark. 172, 545 S.W.3d 755. While the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct are applicable in disqualification proceedings, a violation of the rules does not automatically compel disqualification; rather, such matters involve the exercise of judicial discretion. Brocato , supra.
Appellants argue that the circuit court's decision to revoke Goldman's pro hac vice admission was both legally erroneous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Crawford Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs
...occurs when the circuit court exercises its discretion thoughtlessly and without due consideration. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. , 2022 Ark. 146, 646 S.W.3d 361. In addition, we have held that an abuse of discretion may be manifested by an erroneous interpretatio......
-
Harris v. Crawford Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs
...Ark. 146, 646 S.W.3d 361. In addition, we have held that an abuse of discretion may be manifested by an erroneous interpretation of the law. Id. under the plain language of Rule 12(h)(3), the circuit court had the authority to decide whether to dismiss Harris's suit upon its determination t......