Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Mays v. Neal

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 17, 1997No. 96-690PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Tom Glaze, Justice.

Appellant Richard L. Mays brings this appeal from the appellee Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee’s reprimand sanction, having found Mays violated Rules 1.4(b) and 5.5(b) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.4(b) directs that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Rule 5.5(b) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

This dispute arose…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Undem v. State Board of Law ExaminersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  2. Mikel v. HubbardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  3. In Re Opinion No. 24Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  4. Finch v. NealSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  5. McCullough v. NealSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Discipline of LernerNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  3. Fink v. NealSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
  4. Gillaspie v. LigonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004
  5. Gillaspie v. LigonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API