Rainey v. State
Opinion
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 582
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
EN BANC No. CR-12-950
Opinion Delivered: NOVEMBER 30, 2016
THOMAS RAINEY APPEAL FROM THE DALLAS APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 20CR-10-26] V. HONORABLE DAVID CLINGER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE MOTION STRICKEN
PER CURIAM
Ms. Teresa Bloodman, appellant’s former attorney, tendered a motion requesting this
court to reconsider our recent opinion in this case. See Rainey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 505.
Although Ms. Bloodman alleges that our opinion removed her from this case because of
briefing deficiencies, we removed her because she had recently been placed on interim
suspension pending disbarment proceedings and was, therefore, currently prohibited from
practicing law. Id. Thus, we appointed Mr. Jonathan Streit to represent appellant in this
case, to correct the briefing deficiencies noted, and to submit a substituted brief in this
appeal. Id.
A person who is not a licensed attorney may not practice law in Arkansas Abel v.
Kowalski, 323 Ark. 201, 913 S.W.2d 788 (1996). In Davenport v. Lee, 348 Ark. 148, 72
S.W.3d 85 (2002), our supreme court held that where a party not licensed to practice law
in this state attempts to represent the interest of others by submitting himself or herself to Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 582
the jurisdiction of the court, those actions, such as filing pleadings, are rendered a nullity.
Thus, because Ms. Bloodman is currently unauthorized to practice law, has been removed
from this case, and is, therefore, prohibited from representing appellant, we must strike this
motion as a nullity. See Abel, supra.
Motion stricken.
VIRDEN, J., not participating.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2016 Ark. App. 582 (Rainey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.