Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02010/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

BILLY LEE WRIGHT PLAINTIFF

vs. Case No. 05-2010

PLEASANT VIEW SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 1st day of December, 2005, comes on to be

considered the Franklin County Defendants’ Renewed Motion to

Disqualify Plaintiff’s Attorney as an Attorney of Record in this

Proceeding (Doc. 38.) The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against the Pleasant View School District, the President of

the Pleasant View School Board, the Principal of the Pleasant View

Elementary School, Franklin County Sheriff Reed Haynes, and Chief

Deputy R.T. Hamilton. 

2. Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 20, 2005, and

January 24, 2005, he attempted to pick up his minor children, who

were not living with him at the time, at Pleasant View Elementary

School and was denied access to his children by school district

officials. Plaintiff alleges that he then contacted the Franklin

County Sheriff’s Department “through his attorneys” to seek

assistance in obtaining custody of his children. According to

plaintiff, Chief Deputy Hamilton advised plaintiff’s attorneys

Case 2:05-cv-02010-JLH Document 46 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

that plaintiff “had no right to his children ... and that if he

tried to exercise his parental rights or access the school grounds

whatsoever he would be summarily arrested.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 18.)

3. Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ actions violated his

rights to equal protection, due process, privacy and freedom of

expression. 

4. Sheriff Haynes and Chief Deputy Hamilton move to

disqualify attorney Kevin Holmes and his law firm from

representing plaintiff “at depositions, hearings, and trial.”

(Doc. 39 at pg. 6.) According to defendants, Kevin Holmes

personally participated in the events giving rise to plaintiff’s

claims as set out below:

* On January 25, 2005, at approximately 2:00 p.m.,

Chief Deputy Hamilton received a call from the

superintendent of Pleasant View Schools, Mr.

Vincent ... who stated that he had just received a

call from an attorney by the name of Kevin Holmes

... who advised him that his client had two

children at the school and that he was going to

take custody of them this date.

* Mr. Vincent advised that he did not wish for this

to happen at the school and that he was unaware of

the exact circumstances in this action.

* Defendant Hamilton advised Superintendent Vincent

that he would call Mr. Holmes in order to find out

more information.

* Defendant Hamilton called Mr. Holmes and learned

that the father was Billy Wright and that he had

recently filed for divorce from his wife and the

mother of his children and that he had asked for

custody until the court proceedings.

* Defendant Hamilton asked Attorney Holmes if he had

obtained a writ of assistance and Attorney Holmes

stated he did not feel that a writ was needed

Case 2:05-cv-02010-JLH Document 46 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

since his client was the children’s father who

wanted the children and the mother was not there.

* Defendant Hamilton advised Attorney Holmes that

the writ was needed for the protection of the

sheriff’s department in the handling of the

children over to the father....

* Approximately one hour later at 2:50 p.m.,

Defendant Hamilton contacted the school to see if

they had heard anything from Plaintiff and the

school advised that ... they had not but they did

not want the father coming onto the school grounds

to conduct his business and that it would be

better if he handled personal business off the

school grounds.

* Defendant Hamilton received a call from Attorney

Holmes at approximately 3:00 p.m. stating ... that

if the sheriff’s department interfered in any way

with his client getting his children, he would

file a federal lawsuit against the sheriff’s

department in federal court.

* Defendant Hamilton attempted to explain to

Attorney Holmes that it was not the intention of

the sheriff’s department to prevent his client

from having access to his children but that the

school had asked that the change of custody not

take place on the school grounds....

* At approximately 4:10 p.m., Attorney Holmes called

the sheriff’s department again ... stating that he

had spoken with Jeff Chandler of Russellville and

that he felt the problem had been worked out.

Attorney Holmes asked Defendant Hamilton to

contact Mr. Chandler and Defendant Hamilton agreed

to do so.

* At approximately 4:15 p.m., Defendant Hamilton

contacted Jeff Chandler and discussed the matter

with him. Mr. Chandler advised that the Franklin

County deputies were not obligated to get involved

in a custody dispute and that a writ of assistance

would have been appropriate but Attorney Holmes

did not want to do that....

* At 4:40 p.m., Attorney Holmes called Defendant

Hamilton and inquired if his conversation with Mr.

Chandler had changed his position and Defendant

Case 2:05-cv-02010-JLH Document 46 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Hamilton advised him that his position had not

changed and Attorney Holmes hung up. (Doc. 38 at

pgs. 2-3.)

5. Defendants assert that Holmes and his law firm should be

disqualified from representing plaintiff, because they “and, most

likely, the Plaintiff[] will probably need to call Attorney Kevin

Holmes as a witness at the trial of this cause.” (Doc. 38 ¶ 1.)

6. Plaintiff responds that “it is possible” that plaintiff

will not call Holmes as a witness and that “if Plaintiff does at

some point identify Mr. Holmes as a witness, his testimony should

not and would not disqualify the Jenkins Law Firm.” (Doc. 40 at

pgs. 3-4.) 

7. Rule 3.7 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct

provides:

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in

which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary

witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of

legal services rendered in the case; or

(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work

substantial hardship on the client.

8. When a lawyer is prohibited from representing a client

under Rule 3.7., generally the other lawyers in his firm are as

well. See Ark. R. Prof. Conduct 1.10.

9. At the root of this lawsuit is Holmes’ demand that the

defendants take some sort of affirmative action to assist

plaintiff in obtaining custody of his children and defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-02010-JLH Document 46 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

alleged unconstitutional refusal to do so. The Court therefore

finds that Holmes is likely to be a necessary witness on contested

issues in this matter and that Holmes, and the other members of

his law-firm, must therefore be disqualified from representing

plaintiff. This disqualification will not work a substantial

hardship on plaintiff, as this case is in its initial stages and

has not yet been set for trial.

10. Based on the foregoing, the Franklin County Defendants’

Renewed Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Attorney as an Attorney

of Record in this Proceeding (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of this order in

which to retain new counsel. Once counsel has entered an

appearance on plaintiff’s behalf, a scheduling order setting a

trial date and deadlines for the progression of this case will

issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

 JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02010-JLH Document 46 Filed 12/01/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>