Court Opinion

ID: 9679819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:09:33.277855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:21.479293
License: Public Domain

G-rifein Smith, Chief Justice, dissenting. What has so frequently been referred to as the genius of the American people, of which Arkansas is truly typical; —the spirit of our political, social, and professional institutions ; — the concept upon which human dignity reposes, being intrinsic attributes fervently thought to have become inseparably associated with independence and man’s right to achieve his own destiny within appropriate boundaries; — these virtues, disclosing the aptitude of spirited people to intuitively and accurately distinguish correct conduct as opposed to enslaved error, and to engage in a chosen calling unhampered by the retarding clutch of coercion, — all were so universally recognized, and had become so much a part of nearly the whole of those whose names spell character and trustworthiness on the Bolls of our Certified Bar, that this Court’s overreaching writ of paternalism will come in the nature of a profound shock to lawyers who had little reason to fear, and small ground to suspect, that upon the vote of twenty-five per cent of more than 2,300 licensed attorneys the remaining seventy-five per cent would, by juridical fiat and transfusion, be maneuvered into a position where plenary command and supervisory authority would merge into a process of unappealable decision. Since the morning of recorded Time there have been two conflicting and violently contending theories of control : One functions through understanding, cooperation, liberty of thought, and a willingness to conform to accepted rules of conduct. The other theory relies upon force, capricious will, dogmatic expedition of purpose, and the tyranny coexisting with entrenched power. Accumulated discontent ushered in an historic transaction in 1215. From the thirteenth century until 1933 progressive thought carried with it a recognition of non-molestation when the law itself was not infringed. Freedom is the culmination of self-determination and man’s right to act for himself as one capable of constructive reflection in a society dedicated to intellectual development. From enshrined moorings of safety long cherished we are rapidly becoming a nation governed by miscellaneous boards and commissions; by inquisitorial agencies operating under a flimsy pretext of legal authority approvingly referred to as the Rulemaking Power. It often feeds on sensation, acquires strength through publicized inquisition,' is tolerated because of the law’s delay, and it supplies within the social structure at the national level a refuge for intellectual introverts who are lacking in the capacity to succeed upon their own merits, and therefore envy without reason the person who has. The stratocratic command addressed to attorneys begins with an assertion that ‘ ‘. . . a substantial majority of all the active practicing lawyers . . . have petitioned this court to create an Integrated Bar. . . . Authority for the procedure is to be found in Amendment No. 28 to the Constitution.” That there was a majority petition is an unassimilated conclusion. It rests upon the proposition that certain attorneys in most if not all of the seventy-five counties — attorneys selected by the proponents of integration —were permitted to give ex parte information regarding activities of their brethren at the Bar. For example, A receives a letter asking for a list of the “active” practitioners in town or city B. A compiles this list, omits whom he pleases, and replies that we are the ones who are to be considered. By this process more than half of the enrolled attorneys were relegated to inactivity by this combination of physical and psychological overture attending inquiry. The result, in effect, was repeatedly rejected by the Court. It was of small concern that old-timers who appeared in court only occasionally, or the newly-licensed ones who had not then been afforded the opportunity to make an impression in this highly competitive field, were treated as discarded superannuates or fledglings by chance. By whatever method the result was achieved, (and this is said without the slightest intent to impugn the motives or asperge the sincerity of any individual or group) it differed one-half from the list maintained by this Court — the list of men and women in respect of whose qualifications the Supreme Court as a constitutional tribunal had said were worthy. It is significant that when the Clerk of this Court sent ballots to all who had been certified, including the majority upon which reliance is now placed, less than six hundred expressed a preference for regimentation. Some of the members of this Court have not forgotten the oral presentation when integration was requested under authority of Amendment No. 28. One of the State’s foremost advocates — a man who had participated in promulgation of the Amendment and whose precise phraseology was accepted by those who at election pressed the issue, was asked why, if Amendment 28 conferred integration authority, some language affirmatively expressive of that purpose was not included; and he answered — with that commendable frankness and straightforwardness for which he was known — that the matter Avas intentionally left out through fear that the people Avould not adopt the Amendment. We are now supplying the calculated omission thought by the advocates of Amendment 28 to be too risky for popular scrutiny. The Arkansas Bar Association was conceived by men of professional vision who as leaders felt that by voluntarily coming together and by holding annual conventions matters of mutual interest could be discussed. Its freedom from judicial molestation has been complete. There was no domination by individuals who in consequence of an election under the Constitution were distinguished by the recorded insignia of office. This is as it should be. But under today’s decree the majority of this Court is saying or clearly implying that no person heretofore trusted with a certificate of enrollment may continue to practice law unintegrated. Buies must be made, a superintending board or instrumentality of control established, dues in whatever sum thought appropriate will have to be paid, a financed secretariat will no doubt be created — all under penalty of disbarment for obstinate independence. All this because ballots signed by less than a fourth of the 2,300 men and women we have said were morally fit to represent clients and sufficiently versed in the law to earn reasonable fees — all because this minority has been given a value so chimerically inflated as to dwarf the conception of self-determination.