Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wilson v. Neal

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 11, 2000No. 99-103Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

W.H. “Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice,

concurring in part; ustice, disagree with my fellow justices that disbarment is not the appropriate sanction in this case. The appropriate sanction is not only important to the appellant in this case, Mr. Wilson, but it is ultimately important to the entire legal profession, in that this court has previously held that appellant’s conduct constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Model Rules of Profession Conduct, which regards the commission of a “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Neal v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  2. Wilson v. NealSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  3. Neal v. HollingsworthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  4. Weems v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional ConductSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  5. In Re Reinstatement of Law License of LeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991

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

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

Powered by the Exa API