Court Opinion

ID: 9662537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:12:26.089111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.468228
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Justice, concurring. I concur in the resolution of this case as reflected in the majority’s opinion. I write separately, however, to voice my concern over the personal tenor of this lawsuit as reflected in the briefs and motions filed by the attorneys for Lake View. During the course of this appeal, many motions, most of which were purely procedural, were filed by both the State and Lake View. In at least two of their pleadings, Lake View’s attorneys raised the specter of racism. In short, they asserted that they were being treated unfairly by the State and this court on the basis of the color of their skin. In one of those pleadings, Lake View’s attorneys compared their plight to that of the African-Americans in the landmark cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Such allegations of racial discrimination are certainly very serious and should not be made lightly. However, from my view of the case, they are completely unfounded and without factual support. As such, the behavior of these attorneys, in my opinion, is reprehensible. If this were not bad enough, Lake View’s attorneys continued this theme of racial discrimination in their brief on the issue of attorney’s fees. There, they stated in no uncertain terms that they had been given such a small attorney’s fees, over $9 million, because they were African-American. They further stated that, had they been Caucasian, they would have received a much bigger sum. They wrote: The vast differentiation in the fees that has been allowed in this cause is glaring in that the appellant’s attorneys are the only African-American team of attorneys who have appeared before this court in a public interest case and are now receiving a disparaging fee. The members of the court must take care to recognize the implications of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Sections 2, 3 and 18 of the Arkansas Constitution require that appellant’s attorneys enjoy the same constitutional rights as do Caucasian attorneys in similar situation. As with the motions, Lake View’s attorneys offered nothing in the way of proof to support their claim that they were discriminated against in being awarded a paltry $9,338,035.00. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that any such proof exists, as the chancellor’s order demonstrates that he held these attorneys in high esteem. Furthermore, the cases on which Lake View’s attorneys rely, where Caucasian attorneys allegedly received large sums of money, are not school-funding cases. Counsel for Lake View’s attorneys admitted in oral argument that he had not found any school-funding case where a percentage fee was awarded. In sum, these unfounded allegations of racism are reckless and disrespectful, both to this court and to the lower court. They are an unwanted distraction from the real issues in this case. The issue of race simply did not enter into this court’s decision. Indeed, I am completely confident in saying that the skin color of Lake View’s attorneys played no part whatsoever in this court’s decision. I am equally confident that it played no part in any of the lower court proceedings. I understand that there was a certain amount of posturing going on in this case, both by the State’s and Lake View’s attorneys, and that this case was a high-profile media event. Be that as it may, unfounded and unsupported allegations of racism have no business in a lawsuit of this nature.