State high court rules for attorney’s fees in GIF suit

LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld attorney’s fees of more than $323,000 for one of the lawyers involved in the successful legal challenge to the state’s General Improvement Fund program.

The 4-3 decision by the high court marks the third time the justices have handed down a ruling in the lawsuit brought by a former state lawmaker, Mike Wilson — and the second time they have approved fees for his attorney, John Ogles.

Wilson said the court’s decision likely marks the end of his four-year legal battle.

“It is a victory for taxpayers who may be unable, due to the cost of litigation, [to challenge] blatantly unlawful acts,” Wilson said.

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in Wilson’s favor to strike down the General Improvement Fund, which lawmakers used for years to dole out money for pet projects.

Separate from Wilson’s efforts to stop the practice, federal investigators launched a probe into allegations of kickbacks in connection to some GIF spending, resulting in convictions against three former lawmakers, state Sen. Jon Woods and Reps. Henry “Hank” Wilkins IV and Micah Neal.

In addition to state lawmakers, the federal investigation also netted convictions involving GIF grants against former Ecclesia College president Oren Paris, consultant Randell Shelton and lobbyist Rusty Cranford.

Wilson’s lawsuit specifically targeted the Central Arkansas Planning and Development District in Lonoke, which distributed GIF money across six counties in the state. By the time the high court struck down the practice, the planning district had close to $1 million left in its coffers.

Wilson argued for a third of that amount, $323,266, to be awarded to Ogles for attorney’s fees, with the rest sent back to the state.

The justices last year agreed Ogles was entitled to some attorney’s fees, but left it up to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza to determine an exact amount.

On remand, Piazza agreed with Wilson’s request for a third of the money left over in the district’s accounts, which Wilson said was based on a contingency agreement he made with Ogles at the start of the case.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who has represented the state in Wilson’s suits, appealed the decision, arguing Ogles failed to justify the amount with proof of his qualifications and time spent working on the case.

Her office argued Wilson, who is also an attorney, had done most of the work on the case.

Justice Karen Baker, writing for the court’s majority, declined to overrule Piazza’s decision regarding the size of the award.

“The record demonstrates that Ogles has been practicing law since 1989, has been licensed to practice in several state and federal courts, and has been practicing in front of the circuit court holding the hearing throughout his career, ” Baker wrote. “Further, Ogles submitted that the circuit court judge holding the hearing was familiar with Ogles’s work because the Wilson matter had been in that court for the fouryear litigation.”

Joining Baker in the majority were Justices Courtney Hudson, Robin Wynne and Josephine “Jo” Hart.

The majority also rejected a cross-appeal filed by Wilson, in which he sought $65,564 in interest on the award he argued accumulated in the years since he filed the case. Piazza similarly rejected awarding interest payments.

In a statement Thursday, Rutledge expressed disappointment in the size of the award.

“The Attorney General will continue to defend the constitutionality of appropriation bills and other laws adopted by the General Assembly,” said Rutledge’s spokeswoman, Amanda Priest.

In a pair of partial dissenting opinions, Chief Justice Dan Kemp and Justice Shawn Womack each wrote they would have reversed the award of attorney’s fees, while affirming Piazza’s decision against the award of interest payments.

“Ogles has presented scant evidence of his personal efforts in this case outside of obvious statements that it ‘took up time’ and that it was a ‘hard case,’” wrote Womack, who later called the decision to award Ogles $323,266 “unreasonable.”

Justice Rhonda Wood joined both partial dissents.

Wilson said Thursday he put about $18,000 of his own money in the lawsuit, on filing fees and other legal expenses. He said Ogles hadn’t been paid for any of his work on the suit prior to attorney’s fees being awarded.

At the time the court ruled the practice unconstitutional in late 2017, lawmakers already wound down use of the fund following the revelations brought on by the corruption investigation.

Lawmakers replaced the General Improvement Fund with a new Development and Enhancement Fund in 2019.

Wilson’s most recent fouryear battle against General Improvement Fund spending is his third before the Arkansas Supreme Court, altogether spanning 14 years, to stop individual legislators from directing state money to pet projects.

GIF grants by legislators reach back to at least 2004. Wilson remembers talking with other former legislators about the money for lawmakers’ own projects then and feeling “outrage,” he has said. Wilson, a Democrat, served 12 two-year terms in the state House, starting in 1973.

He and other former lawmakers didn’t like the grants sometimes went to groups to help the then-legislators’ re-election campaigns. And Wilson didn’t like the unfairness of one volunteer fire department, for example, getting a state grant when another down the road didn’t.

He filed his first lawsuit in July 2005. In a pair of 2006 and 2007 rulings on Wilson’s lawsuit, the state Supreme Court said the practice of spending surplus General Improvement Fund money on local projects was illegal when lawmakers directed the money themselves and the purpose of the spending wasn’t distinctly stated.

Starting in 2007, lawmakers revised the practice, sending the General Improvement Fund money to the eight nonprofit regional planning and development districts, which then directed the money to projects the lawmakers recommended.

In his latest lawsuit, Wilson argued the practice of legislators directing General Improvement Fund grants never really changed, and lawmakers still got the final say in where the money went.

Information for this article was contributed by Lisa Hammersly of the