Ruling affirms payout for attorney
Justices uphold $323,266 for work on lawmaker-grants case
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 filed 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 had used for years to dole out money for pet projects.
Separate from Wilson’s efforts to stop the practice, federal investigators opened an inquiry into allegations of kickbacks related to some program spending, resulting in convictions against three former lawmakers, Sen. Jon Woods and Reps. Henry “Hank” Wilkins IV and Micah Neal.
In addition to state lawmakers, the federal investigation also netted convictions involving program 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 program funds across six counties. 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 fees, with the rest sent back to the state.
The justices last year agreed that Ogles was entitled to some fees, but left it up to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza to determine an exact amount.
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 that decision, arguing that Ogles had failed to justify the amount with proof of his qualifications and time spent working on the case.
Her office argued that Wilson, who is also an attorney, had actually 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 that he argued had accumulated in the years since he filed the case. Piazza had 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 to state that they would have reversed the award of attorney 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 that he had put about $18,000 of his own money in the lawsuit, on filing fees and other legal expenses. He said Ogles had not been paid for any of his work on the suit before the fees were awarded.
At the time the court ruled the practice unconstitutional in late 2017, lawmakers had already wound down use of the fund after the revelations of 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 state Supreme Court, altogether spanning 14 years, to stop individual legislators from directing state money to pet projects.
General Improvement Fund 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 in earlier interviews. Wilson, a Democrat, served 12 two-year terms in the state House, starting in 1973.
He and other former lawmakers didn’t like that the grants sometimes went to groups to help the legislators’ reelection campaigns. And Wilson didn’t like the unfairness of one volunteer fire department, for example, getting a state grant when another down the road did not.
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 funds to projects that the lawmakers recommended.
In his latest lawsuit, Wilson argued that the practice of legislators directing the grants never really changed, and that lawmakers still got the final say in where the money went. Information for this article was contributed by Lisa Hammersly of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.