Tag Archives: Service and Summons

New Rule 87: Limited Scope Representation

As of December 14, 2017, there is a new Rule 87 in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under the new rule:

  • Scope of representation may be limited per Rule 1.2(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct.
  • A “notice of limited scope representation” should be filed at the initiation of a proceeding or beginning of the representation.
  • The notice is not required if representation is limited to drafting papers for an otherwise self-represented person. In that case, the attorney is not required to sign the drafted papers but must include a notation saying: “This document was prepared with the assistance of [insert name of attorney], a licensed Arkansas lawyer, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c).”
  • Termination of the representation does not require court approval. It ends when the attorney files a “notice of completion of limited scope representation.” It must be served on the client.
  • Service is not required on limited-scope attorneys for matters outside the scope of representation.

Continue reading New Rule 87: Limited Scope Representation

ACOA: Summons Invalid for Omitting Defendant Name in “Directed to”

 

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Skender, 2016 Ark. App. 206, 489 S.W.3d 176 (2016).

Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled that employee’s summons in his Federal Employees’ Liability Act suit against employer was invalid.

The “directed to” portion of the summons only referred to the name and address of the agent for service. It did not include the name or address of the defendant.

Continue reading ACOA: Summons Invalid for Omitting Defendant Name in “Directed to”

ACOA: Summons Directed to Multiple Defendants Not Fatally Defective


Hall v. State Farm Bank, 2015 Ark. App. 287, 462 S.W.3d 701 (2015).

Appellant debtor sought to invalidate a default judgment issued against him on the basis of an allegedly defective summons.

The debtor, John Hall, claimed that the summons sent to him was invalid because it stated “THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO DEFENDANT: John and Susan Hall.” The debtor argued that his summons should have only been directed to him.

Continue reading ACOA: Summons Directed to Multiple Defendants Not Fatally Defective

SCOA: Summons Stating Incorrect Incarcerated Response Days Invalid Even If No Incarceration

Earls v. Harvest Credit Management VI-B, LLC, 2015 Ark. 175,460 S.W.3d 795 (2015).

The Arkansas Supreme Court held in this case that a summons was invalid for stating incorrectly the number of days in which the defendant would have to respond to summons if defendant was incarcerated.

The summons stated that defendants would have 30 days to respond if incarcerated rather than the correct number of 60.

Continue reading SCOA: Summons Stating Incorrect Incarcerated Response Days Invalid Even If No Incarceration

July 2014 Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule Changes

law-definition-Fotolia_4303976_XSEffective July 1, 2014, a number of changes were made to Arkansas civil procedure rules.

The changes were announced by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in a per curium opinion (2014 Ark. 119) issued on March 13, 2014.

Here are some of the changes:

Ark.R.Civ.P. 4(i) – Service Time Extensions

Subparagraph (i) of Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule 4 has been modified to clarify that the circuit court may extend the time for service either within the original 120 days or within the time period allowed by an earlier time extension.

Ark.R.App.P.-Civ. 2(f)– Interlocutory Appeal of Protective Order Denial

Subparagraph (f) of Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Civil 2 has been expanded to give the Arkansas Supreme Court discretionary authority to hear an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion for protective order when the basis of the request is to protect a privilege.

Continue reading July 2014 Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule Changes