Bloodman v. Ligon

Cite as 2016 Ark. 309
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-16-434
Opinion Delivered: September 15, 2016
TERESA LYNETTE BLOODMAN
PETITIONER
V. PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI; PETITIONER’S
STARK LIGON, AS EXECUTIVE EXPEDITED MOTION FOR STAY
DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME OF INTERIM SUSPENSION
COURT COMMITTEE ON PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PETITION FOR WRIT OF
RESPONDENT CERTIORARI; PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
LODGE THE RECORD AND, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS;
REQUEST TO STRIKE SELECTED
EXHIBITS TO RESPONDENT’S
RESPONSE
REMANDED TO SUPREME
COURT COMMITTEE ON
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR
ENTRY OF A NEW ORDER.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Teresa Lynette Bloodman filed with this court a petition for writ of
certiorari challenging an order of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct
(Committee) temporarily suspending her from the practice of law. Bloodman also filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to lodge the record and an expedited motion for stay of the
interim suspension. Stark Ligon, as executive director of the Committee, filed a combined
response to Bloodman’s petitions. Bloodman filed a reply and requested to strike selected
Cite as 2016 Ark. 309
exhibits. After consideration of these petitions and responses, we remand to the Committee
with directions to enter a new order.
Section 17(E)(3) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating
Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law authorizes a panel of the Committee to
temporarily suspend a lawyer’s privilege to practice law immediately on its decision to
initiate disbarment proceedings. On March 21, 2015, a panel of the Committee
unanimously referred Bloodman to disbarment proceedings and imposed an interim
suspension with the disbarment referral. The Committee filed its interim-suspension order
on March 22, 2016, and Bloodman’s law license has been suspended since that date.
Section 16(A)(3) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating
Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law provides that
a panel of the Committee may impose an interim suspension
upon presentation of a verified petition by the Executive
Director containing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
attorney poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public
or to the lawyer’s clients.
In Tapp v. Ligon, 2013 Ark. 259, 428 S.W.3d 492, we adopted four factors to be
utilized when this court considers a petition for a writ of certiorari to vacate an interim
suspension of a law license. Those factors are (1) whether the public will suffer irreparable
harm unless the order of interim suspension issues; (2) whether the threatened injury to the
public outweighs whatever damage the proposed order may cause the attorney temporarily
suspended from the practice of law; (3) whether the proposed order, if issued, would be
adverse to the public interest; and (4) whether there is a substantial likelihood, based on all
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 309
of the available evidence, that a significant sanction will be imposed on the attorney at the
conclusion of any pending disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 9–10, 428 S.W.3d at 497–98.
We remand to the Committee for entry of a new order with an analysis of the Tapp
factors in light of the evidence presented to the Committee. The Committee has twenty
days from the date of this per curiam opinion to file its order with this court. Bloodman
has fifteen days to file a response to the new order. Bloodman’s interim suspension remains
in effect.
It is so ordered.
SPECIAL JUSTICES Rebecca Blass and Jeffrey Hatfield join.
DANIELSON, J., dissents.
WOOD and WYNNE, JJ., not participating.
PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice, dissenting. I would deny the petition for writ of
certiorari.
3