Ligon v. Jenkins (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 42
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
11-1260
STARK LIGON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS SUPREME
COURT
COMMITTEE
ON
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
PETITIONER
V.
NEWTON DONALD JENKINS, JR.,
ARKANSAS BAR NO. 94231
RESPONDENT
Opinion Delivered February
7, 2013
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DISPOSITION, ENTRY
OF ORDER OF DISBARMENT, AND
MONEY JUDGMENT FOR COSTS
AND EXPENSES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
GRANTED; MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DISPOSITION, ENTRY
OF ORDER OF DISBARMENT, AND
MONEY JUDGMENT FOR COSTS
AND EXPENSES HELD IN
ABEYANCE; PETITIONER’S BRIEF
ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Stark Ligon, Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court
Committee on Professional Conduct, petitions this court for reconsideration of a motion for
the summary disposition and order of disbarment of Respondent Newton Donald Jenkins, Jr.,
and a money judgment for costs and expenses. We denied Petitioner’s original motion by
letter order dated January 10, 2013, and suggested that a brief would be beneficial to this
court. Rather than file a brief, Petitioner asks for reconsideration. We grant reconsideration
and now direct Petitioner to file a brief in support of his original motion on the issues herein
discussed.
Petitioner argues, as he did in the original motion, that summary disposition of
disbarment is warranted in this case because Respondent has not filed a brief in accordance
Cite as 2013 Ark. 42
with section 13(D) of the Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct and has therefore left
the special judge’s findings of multiple rule violations and recommended sanction of
disbarment unopposed. Petitioner argues that summary disposition of disbarment is therefore
appropriate and furthermore consistent with previous disbarment proceedings in this court,
specifically In re Brown, 369 Ark. App’x 566, 252 S.W.3d 137 (2007) (per curiam), and Givens
v. Greene, 2013 Ark. 2 (per curiam). In addition, Petitioner moves for a money judgment
against Respondent for costs and expenses pursuant to section 18 of the Procedures, which
authorizes a Panel of the Committee to impose costs and expenses on an attorney who has
been sanctioned.
As for the summary disposition of disbarment, we note that the cases upon which
Petitioner relies, Brown and Greene, as well as the case upon which Greene relied, Ligon v.
Revels, 367 Ark. 186, 238 S.W.3d 609 (2006) (per curiam), all involved respondent attorneys
who either had defaulted or had notified this court that a brief would not be forthcoming.
In the present case, however, Respondent did not default on the original petition for
disbarment, but filed an “Answer, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Strike.” Respondent
moved to dismiss on the grounds of improper service, contending that the petition for
disbarment was not “properly served in accordance with the Arkansas Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Respondent has subsequently defaulted on the two amended petitions for
disbarment, failed to appear at his disbarment trial, and, as noted, failed to file a brief with this
court challenging the special master’s findings, conclusions, and recommended disbarment.
While we are aware that section 13(D) of our Procedures directs Respondent to file his brief
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. 42
first, we are nevertheless hesitant to issue a summary order of disbarment without a brief from
Petitioner in a case where the respondent attorney has challenged service. Accordingly,
notwithstanding Respondent’s failure to file a brief, we direct Petitioner to file a brief
specifically addressing the issue of the propriety of service on Respondent as well as the
propriety of the special judge’s findings and conclusions on the motion to dismiss. While the
privilege of practicing law is protected by “the very lowest” due-process review, we must
nevertheless be assured that even that level of process has been satisfied in every disbarment
proceeding, but especially here where service has been challenged. Jenkins v. Ligon, 2010 Ark.
24, at 5 (quoting Donovan v. Supreme Court Comm. on Prof’l Conduct, 375 Ark. 350, 355, 290
S.W.3d 599, 603 (2009)).
In addition, as for Petitioner’s request for a money judgment from this court for costs
and expenses, we note the special judge’s finding of reasonableness, but direct Petitioner to
brief the issue of this court’s authority to issue a money judgment for costs and expenses in
an original action for disbarment given that section 18 of the Procedures authorizes a Panel
of the Committee to impose costs against an attorney the Committee has sanctioned.
The motion for reconsideration of motion for summary disposition, entry of order of
disbarment, and money judgment is granted. The motion for summary disposition, entry of
order of disbarment, and money judgment is held in abeyance. Within twenty-one days of
this opinion, Petitioner is directed to file a brief in support of his motion specifically
addressing the issues of service and costs discussed herein.
GOODSON, J., not participating.
Stark Ligon, for petitioner.
Newton Donald Jenkins, Jr., pro se respondent.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.