ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
The legal profession is unique in that it largely governs itself with minimal external oversight. It has also created a complex framework of confidentiality and immunity that shields much of its conduct from public scrutiny or legal consequence. This poses an obvious conflict of interest—one that the profession openly acknowledges. As stated in the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct:
​
“The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government... The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar... Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.”
​
Despite this charge, Arkansas’s legal system has failed to meet that responsibility. The autonomy granted to lawyers and judges is being abused, and the state’s oversight mechanism—the Office of Professional Conduct (OPC)—has proven ineffective in acting in the public interest.
A Broken System of Oversight
Every attorney in Arkansas is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Enforcement of those rules is the responsibility of the OPC, which operates under the authority of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Each year, the Court publishes a report summarizing the number of grievances filed against attorneys, how many were formally investigated, and what actions—if any—were taken. The numbers are alarming.
​
-
In 2024, 635 grievances were filed.
-
Only 11 were investigated as formal complaints—just 1.7%.
-
The rest were dismissed without investigation or left unresolved.
This wasn’t an anomaly. The percentage of complaints investigated has been falling steadily—from nearly 20% in the early 2000s to an average of 4.6% since 2020.
​
Also concerning, the OPC takes a narrow view of what violations warrant action. Most disciplinary measures involve missed deadlines, failing to provide services, mishandling client funds, or criminal convictions unrelated to their practice of law. Ethical breaches like dishonesty, misconduct in court, or abuse of process are rarely pursued.​​​​
An Open Secret
In June 2025, Arkansas Business published an investigative article titled “Arkansas Sees Sharp Decline in Attorney Sanctions, Raising Oversight Concerns,” highlighting the OPC’s dysfunction. The article quoted new OPC Director Robert Brech, who admitted that some attorneys had stopped filing complaints because “so few lawyers were disciplined,” and that many lawyers felt there was “no fear of violating rules.”
​
This problem is well known inside the judiciary.
​
-
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s own reports show the consistent downward trend in investigations and sanctions.
-
In 2022, we sent a letter to then-Chief Justice Dan Kemp raising concerns; his clerk confirmed receipt and awareness.
-
We filed legal motions with the Supreme Court regarding unanswered grievances. These were defended by the Attorney General and dismissed by the court.
-
Justice Courtney Goodson, the Supreme Court’s liaison to the OPC until 2024, was asked in 2023 about the excessive dismissals of grievances. She responded: “Maybe attorneys are doing a better job. Maybe we don’t have as many valid complaints” (1:12 in video). This response epitomizes a culture of denial rather than accountability.
Designed by Attorneys, for Attorneys
The Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law lay out how grievances must be handled—but the rules are unevenly applied and stacked against complainants. For example:​
​
-
Complainants have just 20 days to request a review after receiving a dismissal notice.
-
In contrast, the OPC has no deadlines for acknowledging, reviewing, or resolving a complaint.
-
This creates a system where complaints can sit unanswered for months to years.
As of May 2025, Director Brech reported that 1,054 complaints were still open, including one dating back to 2017.​
The rules protect attorneys by design, while placing burdens and time constraints on those harmed by attorney misconduct. It is the responsibility of the Arkansas Supreme Court to modify their rules to serve - rather than circumvent - justice.
Time for Change
All persons who deal with attorneys should be familiar with the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. If an attorney - yours or your opposing counsel - violates these rules and causes harm, you should file a complaint with the Office of Professional Conduct. We would also like you to email us a copy of the complaint and keep us updated on the outcome and time to resolution. This allows us to share patterns with legislators and media to advocate for change.​
​
We support the following reforms to restore trust in Arkansas’s legal accountability system:
​
-
Establish an independent oversight body to audit the OPC and Arkansas Supreme Court’s disciplinary procedures.
-
Require specific deadlines for OPC responses and investigations.
-
Make all grievances public (with redactions for sensitive information).
-
Preserve records of all grievances for at least 10 years, even if dismissed.
-
Mandate that a minimum percentage of complaints be formally investigated each year.
-
Implement external review of randomly dismissed complaints by legislative or independent entities.
Did You Know? The Case of Hogue v. Neal
In 1998, attorney Lynn Hogue filed a complaint against President Bill Clinton, who, as an Arkansas-licensed attorney, had committed perjury before Congress during the Lewinsky investigation—a clear violation of Arkansas’s Rules of Professional Conduct. OPC Director James Neal acknowledged receiving the complaint but refused to act—neither dismissing nor adjudicating it.
Additionally, in 1999, a federal judge in Arkansas found Clinton in contempt of court for failure to comply with discovery orders. The Order of Contempt was forwarded to the OPC, which qualified as a formal grievance. This, too, was ignored.
Hogue then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Arkansas Supreme Court, seeking to force the OPC to act on both grievances. The Court ruled that the OPC has mandatory duties under its own procedures. Only then did the OPC act—eventually resulting in Clinton’s disbarment.
​
This case illustrates what happens when accountability is forced—but also how the system chooses inaction when left to its own discretion.
​