Months before the Arkansas Supreme Court declined to review Justice Rhonda Wood's decision not to recuse from a wrongful-death lawsuit involving a nursing home owned by a major campaign donor, the Arkansas Bar Association proposed that the full court review, upon request, any such decisions by individual judges.
Had the court adopted the measure proposed in July, it would have been required to review Wood's Nov. 10 decision not to recuse from a case involving Michael Morton's Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in North Little Rock.
Instead, the court released a revised Code of Judicial Conduct on Dec. 14 -- minus the association's review recommendation. And on Jan. 19 the full court, without Wood's participation, denied requests filed Nov. 22 for an expedited hearing to review Wood's decision.
While Wood voluntarily detailed her reasons for not stepping aside, the full court offered no explanation for its denial. Wood did not participate with the other six justices in the panel's decision.
Neither the recently sworn in Chief Justice Dan Kemp nor former Chief Justice Howard Brill would comment on whether the initial request for Wood's recusal, filed Aug. 30, had in any way complicated the judges' handling of the proposed rule changes. Former Justice Paul Danielson also declined comment, as judges usually do on cases before them.
Little Rock lawyer Scott Trotter, who appeared on bar association panels and forums last year discussing the proposed changes, said he still hopes more rule changes will take place.
"With the Supreme Court's resolution of the motion for recusal of Justice Wood now completed, I hope the Court will consider adopting the new rules on recusal as recommended by the Arkansas Bar Association on July 5," Trotter wrote in an email.
Trotter, who stressed that he was not speaking for the association, said he particularly hopes the court adopts proposed Rule 1.03.
That measure stated: "If a motion is filed seeking disqualification, recusal, or determination of incompetence of a Supreme Court justice, the justice in question shall act promptly by written order and either grant or deny the motion. If the motion is denied, the justice shall state in writing the specific grounds upon which he or she denies the motion. If the justice denies the motion, the movant, within fifteen days of entry of the order, may file a motion for court review, which shall be determined promptly by the remaining justices upon a de novo standard of review."
The case currently at issue before the Supreme Court is an appeal by Morton and his nursing home challenging the class-action status a lower court granted to the lawsuit's plaintiff, Andrew Phillips. His mother, Dorothy Phillips, was a resident of the Robinson center when she died in February 2014.
Howard Gregory Campbell, one of the attorneys representing Andrew Phillips, said Thursday that he did not believe the outcome of the recusal motion "had anything to do with [the court's] consideration of any rules [changes]." But Campbell sees a need for more due process when it comes to Supreme Court recusals.
Campbell noted that if a trial judge refuses to recuse, the person who wanted that judge to step aside can appeal.
"It's called due process," he said.
"But [if] you ask a Supreme Court justice to recuse ... the way they've historically done it, the one who decides ... whether to recuse" is the one being asked to recuse.
"You have no right to appeal anywhere," he said. "There needs to be some rules that protect the litigants' due process, and here there is none."
Campbell said this case was "the only time in my entire 25-year career I've ever asked a judge to recuse."
The other attorney for Phillips, Brian Reddick, did not return a phone message seeking comment.
State Desk on 01/30/2017