{
  "id": 1616813,
  "name": "In Re Louis Art DODRILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Dodrill",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-12",
  "docket_number": "76-54",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "224",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 Ark. 223"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "538 S.W.2d 549"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "438 F. 2d 699",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2206461
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/438/0699-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.W. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 Ark. 1101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449859
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/202/1101-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2886,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.882,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5110309540241307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6674649757572739
    },
    "sha256": "9f67253a33d97ee2e5d059fef3c034069b444c191667fb70467c141422caee42",
    "simhash": "1:f88d5f28ed485d22",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:10.616532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In Re Louis Art DODRILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nIn February, 1975, the circuit court rendered a judgment suspending petitioner\u2019s license to practice law for twelve months and ordering that his license \u201cbe reinstated thereafter only upon the petitioner\u2019s satisfactory passing the regular examination for admission to the Bar administered by the State Board of Bar Examiners.\u201d Petitioner argues that the provision of the court\u2019s judgment which requires him to satisfactorily pass the regular bar examination is a nullity because the circuit judge was without the power or authority to impose such a condition on the reinstatement of his suspended license. Therefore, petitioner asserts that since the one year period of suspension is completed his license should be forthwith reissued to him.\nProceedings involving the disbarment of an attorney are civil in nature. Hurst v. Bar Rules Committee of the State of Arkan sas, 202 Ark. 1101, 155 S.W. 2d 697 (1941). Amendment 28 to the Arkansas Constitution (1874) provides:\nThe Supreme Court shall make rules regulating the practice of law and the professional conduct of attorneys at law.\nRule 5 of our Supreme Court Rules on Professional Conduct (1973), promulgated pursuant to Amendment 28, provides in pertinent part:\nIf the Judge or Chancellor finds, upon the hearing before him, that the attorney has been guilty of professional misconduct, he shall reprove, reprimand, suspend, or disbar such attorney, as the testimony may warrant ....\nEither the Committee or the attorney defendant may appeal to the Supreme Court from the action taken by the Judge or Chancellor. . . .\nFurther, as to jurisdiction, it was succinctly said in Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 438 F. 2d 699 (8th Cir. 1971):\nThe principle is firmly established that the judicial branch of the government, acting through the courts, has exclusive jurisdiction to admit, control and disbar attorneys.\nHere, in a disbarment proceeding, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction with the power and authority to impose the lesser penalty; i.e., to conditionally suspend petitioner\u2019s license \u201cas the testimony may warrant. ...\u201d which we equate with the imposition of reasonable conditions upon termination of the suspension. If the condition was unacceptable when imposed, petitioner\u2019s remedy was by appeal to test the reasonableness of the condition. Admittedly, petitioner failed to exercise his right of appeal within the proper time. Consequently, he is not entitled to a review of his petition which asserts that the court was without the power and authority to require him to pass the bar examination as a condition to the reinstatement of his license.\nPetition denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McArthur, Johnson, Lofton, Wilson & Jacobs, for petitioner.",
      "W. Dent Gitchel, for Supreme Court of Arkansas Committee on Professional Ethics."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In Re Louis Art DODRILL\n76-54\n538 S.W. 2d 549\nOpinion delivered July 12, 1976\nMcArthur, Johnson, Lofton, Wilson & Jacobs, for petitioner.\nW. Dent Gitchel, for Supreme Court of Arkansas Committee on Professional Ethics."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 252
}