State business group fights lawyers’ ballot proposal

Taking aim at an Arkansas Bar Association proposal to write more protections for lawyers and the courts into the constitution, the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce issued a letter Tuesday calling on its members to lobby their local attorneys.

The personal appeal by chamber President Randy Zook seeks to influence a planned vote next week by the bar association’s House of Delegates on a wide-ranging draft state constitutional amendment that would compete with a legislative proposal backed by the chamber, the state’s nursing home industry and a platoon of Republican lawmakers.

In a phone call Tuesday, Zook confirmed that he sent the letter, which was obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Zook declined to comment further on what he called “private correspondence” or on how many chamber members received the letter.

The Legislature-sponsored amendment supported by the chamber, Senate Joint Resolution 8, would place a cap on attorneys’ fees as well as on punitive and noneconomic damages in lawsuits. It also would give the Legislature some control over court rules.

The bar association proposal unveiled in May would block such caps and write stricter rules on disclosing campaign finances. It also would weaken the Legislature’s authority over executive branch decisions and prevent surplus funds from being spent by individual legislators.

The Legislature referred SJR8 to the November 2018 ballot.

In order to appear on the November 2018 ballot along with SJR8, bar delegates will have to approve the draft amendment before beginning the lengthy petition process to put the proposal on the ballot.

“The Bar Association sought to defeat [SJR8] during the legislative session and failed, now it seeks to muddy the issue at the ballot box by referring a competing measure,” Zook’s letter says.

The letter asks that recipients, either individually or on behalf of a business, ask attorneys to oppose the bar association proposal.

Bar Association President Denise Hoggard said Tuesday she could not recall another time when the chamber attempted to sway a decision of the bar’s House of Delegates.

After the bar association released its draft proposal in mid-May, Zook released a statement through the chamber saying he expected the competition and looked forward to a “debate.”

Had Zook sent her a statement opposing the draft amendment, Hoggard said she would have made sure the delegates were aware of the input. She said she forwarded Zook’s letter Tuesday to the chairman of the bar’s legislation committee, and that chairman can decide whether or not to share it.

Noting that the interests of business and lawyers are often intertwined — and that many law firms are chamber members — Hoggard said the letter could put “economic pressure” on certain delegates.

“I would assume the Chamber of Commerce appreciates the businesses operated by lawyers,” Hoggard said.

Hoggard added that she hoped the competing proposals would not hurt the relationship between the two groups, and that delegates would vote in the best interest of the public and the courts.

The bar association’s executive committee disseminated a copy of its draft amendment to delegates last month. The proposal — covering five separate policy changes — was written by Scott Trotter, a Little Rock lawyer who said he volunteered his efforts.

The House of Delegates will meet June 16 in Hot Springs to consider the bar’s proposed amendment.

Trotter said Tuesday he hadn’t seen Zook’s letter, and he referred comment back to the bar association.

The chamber has been a steady proponent of making Arkansas’ tort laws more favorable to the business community by reducing liability for damages often described as being for “pain and suffering.”

Last year, the Arkansas Supreme Court blocked the counting of votes for an initiated proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed the Legislature to cap noneconomic damages in medical suits to at least $250,000. In this year’s regular legislative session, lawmakers passed SJR8, which would set a similar cap for all suits at $500,000.

Punitive damages would also be limited at $500,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is greater, under the Legislature’s proposal.

“[SJR8] is clearly an important policy issue for us and we’ve put forward a lot of effort to get it on the ballot,” Zook said Tuesday in an interview. “It is essential to having a healthier economy.”

Under the bar association proposal, the Legislature could not set caps on attorneys’ fees or damages, which the legal community has argued would dampen access to courts.

If both proposals end up on the ballot, whichever receives more votes would become law.