{
  "id": 8720977,
  "name": "In Re: Petition of Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association for the Establishment of Trustee Proceedings",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Committee on Professional Ethics of Arkansas Bar Ass'n for the Establishment of Trustee Proceedings",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-21",
  "docket_number": "81-100",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "497",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "273 Ark. 496"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "621 S.W.2d 623"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Ark. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728786
      ],
      "year": 1842,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/4/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672707
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619171
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0569-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2552,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3772428431155639
    },
    "sha256": "bcb9ce75ac152562879797875b28e93bc732d2732228735dac0d0b7370455771",
    "simhash": "1:37d24918a83c7f96",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:45.388199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In Re: Petition of Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association for the Establishment of Trustee Proceedings"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association has petitioned this Court to order, by rule, that the probate judge shall have the jurisdiction to appoint a trustee for a lawyer who is disabled, is deceased or has disappeared. Under the proposal the trustee would make an inventory of the attorney\u2019s files and bank accounts and would then prepare an accounting. The trustee would be authorized to refer the attorney\u2019s files to another attorney or to the client. No mention is made of the disposition of funds accounted for by the trustee. The probate judge would then discharge the trustee from further responsibilities. We decline to order the proposal into effect.\nWe are asked to confer the jurisdiction on the probate court by rule. Yet, the probate court is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, having only such jurisdiction and powers as are conferred by the constitution or by statute, or are necessarily incident to the exercise of the jurisdiction and powers granted. Hilburn v. First State Bank, 259 Ark. 569, 535 S.W. 2d 810 (1976). The authority and jurisdiction of probate courts are to be strictly construed. Poe v. Case, 263 Ark. 488, 565 S.W. 2d 612 (1978). The proposal deals with substantive law, not procedural law. Courts are reluctant to make substantive law by rule, especially in areas where there is, or might be, a conflict with some act of the General Assembly. Clearly this proposal would conflict with the statutory scheme for establishing a guardianship in the event of an incompetent attorney. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 57, Chapter 6. The proposal for deceased attorneys would conflict with the statutory scheme for decedents\u2019 estates. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 57, Chapter 6. There are no probate statutes conflicting with the proposal for attorneys who have disappeared, but there are express conflicting statutes, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 58-201, 202 and 203, that provide chancery court shall have jurisdiction of the estates of missing persons.\nIt is doubtful that we could fashion any type of rule that would authorize the probate court to administer trusts. Since 1842 our cases have been clear that the establishment, management and execution of a trust are in chancery court. Ex Parte Conway, 4 Ark. 302 (1842).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. K. Holmes, III, and B. Frank Mackey, Jr. for petitioner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In Re: Petition of Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association for the Establishment of Trustee Proceedings\n81-100\n621 S.W. 2d 623\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 21, 1981\nP. K. Holmes, III, and B. Frank Mackey, Jr. for petitioner."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 516,
  "last_page_order": 517
}