Walker v. State

Decided October 19, 1981

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1981-10-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A lawyer residing outside the State of Arkansas who has been admitted to practice law in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the attorney resides or in the Supreme Court or the highest appellate court of the state of the attorney’s residence, and who is in good standing in the court of the attorney’s admission, will be permitted by comity and by courtesy to appear, file pleadings and conduct the trial of cases in all courts of the State of Arkansas. However, any trial court may require such nonresident attorney to associate a lawyer residing and admitted to practice in the State of Arkansas upon whom notices may be served and may also require that the Arkansas lawyer associated be responsible to the court in which the case is pending for the progress of the case, insofar as the interest represented by the Arkansas lawyer and the nonresident lawyer is concerned. Unless the State in which the said nonresident lawyer resides likewise accords similar comity and courtesy to Arkansas lawyers who may desire to appear and conduct cases in the courts of that State, this privilege will not be extended to such nonresident lawyer. A nonresident lawyer will not be permitted to engage in any case in an Arkansas court unless a written statement is filed with the court in which the nonresident lawyer submits to all disciplinary procedures applicable to Arkansas lawyers. This rule shall supersede Act 222 of the General Assem”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Willett v. State, Preston v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-10-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2003

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The appellant, by his attorney, has filed a motion for an extension of time for the filing of a brief. Appellant’s attorney is a non-resident who is not licensed to practice law in this State. A non-resident attorney will be permitted to appear in the Arkansas courts by comity and courtesy only upon satisfying the conditions set forth in Rule XIV, Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, Ark. Stat. Ann. Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979). One of the conditions is:

A non-resident lawyer will not be permitted to engage in any case in an Arkansas court unless he first signs a written statement, to be filed with the court, in which the non-resident lawyer submits himself to all disciplinary procedures applicable to Arkansas lawyers.

¶2The motion will be dismissed for non-compliance with the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar unless the nonresident attorney complies with the rules within twenty days.