Court Opinion

ID: 9767390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:18:28.794756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.917743
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). I am strongly of the opinion that under the authority of the two Block cases,1 the decree of the Chancery Court herein should be affirmed in every respect, except as to the federal income tax returns. The first Block case was decided in 1959, and the second Block case was decided in 1961 ; and every matter presented in the present case was before us in those cases. I maintain that we should not overrule cases so recently decided. Trial judges will never know when to follow the rule of stare decisis if appellate judges change the holdings with each subsequent case. The volume containing the first Revised Statutes of Arkansas was published in 1838, and Albert Pike wrote the preface to that volume, which preface is a classic. On Page YII of the preface, there is this language: “Change and innovation in the law is generally a great evil, and every alteration in existing statutes should be made slowly, cautiously, and with due deliberation. It is sometimes better to abide by a law manifestly unjust, unequal, and unfounded in reason than by altering it to unsettle rules of practice and titles to property ...” What Albert Pike said of legislation is many times more applicable to judicial decisions. In Carter Oil Co. v. Weil, 209 Ark. 653, 192 S. W. 2d 215, Judge Frank Smith, speaking for this Court, quoted from Taliaferro v. Barnett, 47 Ark. 359, 1 S. W. 702: “ ‘A decision of the court when overruled stands as though it had never been, and the court in reversing judgment declares what the rule of law was in fact when the erroneous decision was made. ’ ’ ’ In the first Block case we listed twenty-five instruments which real estate brokers were then using in their business, and we held that, with the sole exception of No. 14 (offers and acceptances), the brokers, in filling in the blank spaces, were Practicing law.2 Now, in the present case, the two Block cases are specifically “modified” by this language: ‘ ‘ Therefore we are ruling that the decision in Arkansas Bar Assn. v. Block, 230 Ark. 430, 323 S. W. 2d 912, should be modified to provide that a real estate broker, when the person for whom he is acting has declined to employ a lawyer to prepare the necessary instruments and has authorized the real estate broker to do so, may be permitted to fill in the blanks in simple printed standardized real estate forms, which forms must be approved by a lawyer; it being understood that these forms shall not be used for other than simple real estate transactions which arise in the usual course of the broker’s business and that such forms shall be used only in connection with real estate transactions actually handled by such brokers as a broker and then without charge for the simple service of filling in the blanks.” I submit that no person can now tell how many of the twenty-four instruments prohibited to realtors in the first Block decision are now allowed to realtors by the present decision, and how many of the twenty-four instruments prohibited in the first Block decision are still prohibited to realtors. The Majority Opinion in the present case merely saj^s, “permitted to fill in the blanks in simple standardized real estate forms which must be approved by a lawyer. ’ ’ Which forms are ‘ ‘ simple standardized real estate forms ? ’ ’ The Majority Opinion does not answer the question. The law is thus left in confusion; and subsequent litigation will be required to settle the confusion. The words of Albert Pike, as contained in the preface to the Revised Statutes of 1838, are certainly applicable to the present case. There is a splendid way in which this Court can keep itself abreast of the times in conveyancing matters. I have repeatedly urged the Court to adopt such a course; but my suggestions have been brushed aside. I now make the suggestion here. Amendment No. 28 to the Arkansas Constitution was adopted by the People in 1938; and the full text of the Amendment is: “The Supreme Court shall make rules regulating the practice of law and the professional conduct of attorneys at law. ’ ’ Acting under the mandate of that Amendment, this Court on April 24,1939, promulgated rules regulating the professional conduct of attorneys at law; but this Court has never seen fit to promulgate rules regulating the practice of law so as to clearly delineate when realtors are engaged in the practice of the law. In the first Block case we refused to define the practice of the law, but did hold that the completion of any one of twenty-four different instruments there listed constituted the practice of the law. I thought then and say now that this Court should promulgate rules definitely stating which transactions constitute the practice of the law, and which do not. If, as the years go by, the Court should find that certain changes needed to be made in the rules, then the Court would be free to do so under the constitutional power. Buies operate prospectively; whereas Court Opinions operate retrospectively, as shown in Carter Oil Co. v. Weil, supra. I insist that the present case should be affirmed (except only as to the filling in of federal tax returns); and this Court should either simultaneously or later promulgate rules definitely stating what instruments may not be completed by realtors. Then any interested party or organization desiring a change in the rules may apply to the Court for such change without having overstepped an unstated line. The opinion of the Majority in the present case will inevitably lead to subsequent litigation. The Constitution says: “The Supreme Court shall make rules governing the practice of the law ...” When we follow the Constitutional mandate it will be unnecessary to have all these suits like the one at bar. For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent from the Majority holding.   The first Block case is Arkansas Bar Assn. v. Block, 230 Ark. 430, 323 S. W. 2d 912; and the second Block case is Block v. Arkansas Bar Assn., 233 Ark. 516, 345 S. W. 2d 471. Throughout this dissenting opinion these cases will be referred to as the “Block cases.”    Here is the language of the opinion: “As indicated, we hold that the preparation of any of the instruments here involved, or any other instruments involving real property rights for others, either with or without pay, save and except Instrument No. 14 above, constitutes the practice of law in this State.”