Arkansas: Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings

Plouffe v. Ligon

On December 1, 2008 appellant attorney, Plouffe, sued the appellee director of professional conduct office, Ligon, to enjoin attorney disciplinary proceedings the director initiated against the attorney. Such disciplinary proceedings relate to a brief filed by Plouffe on July 5, 2007 in an appeal before the Arkansas Court of Appeals. In the opinion, a three-judge panel concluded that Plouffe’s brief contained inappropriate and irrelevant remarks, and such remarks came close to a breach in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. After Ligon investigated the Chamberlain brief, he filed an ethics complaint against Plouffe before the Committee on Professional Conduct. This complaint claimed that Plouffe violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct which provides that professional misconduct is that in when the lawyer engages in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. After this complaint, Plouffe filed an action against Ligon asking to enjoin the attorney disciplinary proceedings. Ligon moved to dismiss the complaint arguing the court should avoid hearing this matter under the Younger abstention doctrine; the district court agreed that the Younger abstention applied and dismissed the complaint. Plouffe appealed.
The Younger abstention doctrine provides that the federal courts should abstain from using jurisdiction when 1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, 2) which implicates important state interests, and 3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions in such a proceeding. In Plouffe’s appeal, he argued that two requirements for abstention are not met, requirement 2 and 3. Also, Plouffe argues that his statements made in the Chamberlain brief were protected under the First Amendment. The courts found that the presence of such requirements in question did exist thus affirming the judgment of the district court and dismissing Plouffe’s complaint.