Opinion ID: 2433135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to make special findings

Text: Mr. Finch contends that the Committee committed error by refusing to make special findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, in examining the record we note that Mr. Finch's request was general and somewhat nebulous in nature: Mr. Finch: May we request special findings? To which the following response was made by a Committee member, Mr. Virden: We have never made special findings and we justwe are not findingI'll say this on the record, I don't think anybody will object: we are not saying that there was a fraud committed. We're saying there was a violation of Rule 8.4(c) [actually, Rule 8.4(d)]. Mr. Finch contends that the Committee committed error by refusing to state facts constituting a violation of Rule 8.4(d) or by failing to explain at the hearing what respondent did that constituted a violation, and that because of this failure, his due process rights were violated. The Committee submits that Mr. Finch has waived this issue because he did not argue below that the failure to make special findings violated his due process rights. It is an elementary principle of administrative law that an issue must be raised at the hearing below in order to be raised on appeal. Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9, 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172, 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131, 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13, 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967). However, inasmuch as Mr. Finch asked for special findings, we address this issue in a limited manner. The Committee was established pursuant to Amendment 28 of the Arkansas Constitution which provides, The Supreme Court shall make rules regulating the practice of law and the professional conduct of attorneys at law. The Committee is not bound by rules of the court and is not required to strictly adhere to the rules of evidence or the rules of procedure, because [t]o do so would unduly complicate and probably lengthen the proceedings before the Committee. Sexton, 299 Ark. at 447, 774 S.W.2d at 118. In order to proceed in an orderly fashion, we have established procedural rules, and these rules, on their face, do not require the Committee to make findings of fact. Most pertinent is Section 5(F)(5-6) of the Procedures, which provides: (5) At the end of the hearing, the Committee shall hold an executive session to deliberate upon any disciplinary action to be taken. (6) The decision of the Committee shall be announced immediately with a statement of the votes of the individual members, if the decision is not unanimous. If a majority of the Committee votes to caution, reprimand, or suspend an attorney, the Committee shall have the Executive Director notify the complainant of the specific action taken against the attorney and file a copy of the letter of caution, reprimand, or suspension as a public record in the office of the Clerk. In asking for special findings, we assume Mr. Finch meant findings of fact and conclusions of law for he cites Ark.R.Civ.P. 52 in support of his position, which provides in pertinent part: If requested by a party, in all contested actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. While this is a correct recital, we have held that the Committee is not bound by rules of the court and is not required to strictly adhere to the Rules of Evidence or the Rules of Procedure. Sexton, supra . Granted, under the circumstances of this case, it would have been appropriate and most helpful for the Committee to have made findings as to Mr. Finch's conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. By doing so, Mr. Finch would have understood the Committee's actions and this court would have been in a better position to evaluate the Committee's findings in our de novo review. Nevertheless, we will review this case on its record and pronounce such judgment as in our opinion should have been pronounced below.