Michael G. Horn and Leslie Horn Joseph v. Elizabeth Diane James

── Michael G. Horn and Leslie Horn Joseph v. Elizabeth Diane James ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 278 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-199 MICHAEL G. HORN AND LESLIE Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 HORN JOSEPH APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND DIVISION V. [NO. 60PR-23-1425] ELIZABETH DIANE JAMES HONORABLE CASEY R. TUCKER, APPELLEE JUDGE REVERSED AND REMANDED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge This interlocutory appeal arises from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order disqualifying appellants’ counsel, William L. Owen, from representing appellants Michael Horn and Leslie Horn Joseph in a probate proceeding. Because the circuit court’s ruling rests on speculation and an “appearance of impropriety” unsupported by proof of a violation of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct or a properly pled conflict of interest, we reverse and remand. I. Facts and Procedural History The underlying litigation concerns the administration of the estate of L.D. Horn. Appellants and appellee Elizabeth James are the decedent’s children and adverse parties in competing probate filings.  On July 30, 2024, attorney Virgil Young—who had previously prepared estate- planning documents for the decedent—was deposed pursuant to subpoena. At that deposition, Young was accompanied by attorney William Owen, who appeared as a courtesy to represent Young for purposes of the deposition only. Following the deposition, Owen was retained by appellants and entered his appearance on August 13, 2024. James thereafter moved to disqualify Owen, alleging violations of Rules 1.7, 3.4, 4.2, and 7.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and asserting an “appearance of impropriety.” After hearings, the circuit court granted the motion. The court expressly declined to find a direct violation of any rule but concluded that Owen’s conduct created an “appearance of impropriety” and that he had the “opportunity” to access confidential information, amounting to an “indirect conflict.” This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review A circuit court’s decision to disqualify an attorney is reviewed under an abuse-of- discretion standard. See, e.g., Stuart v. Walther, 2024 Ark. 41, 686 S.W.3d 486; Howard v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. 214, 654 S.W.3d 809; Turnbow v. Hiegel Bldg. Sols., LLC, 2024 Ark. App. 438. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration or when it misinterprets the law. Howard, supra. Disqualification is a “drastic measure” that should be imposed only when clearly required by the circumstances. Weigel v. Farmers Ins. Co., 356 Ark. 617, 158 S.W.3d 147 2 (2004). The burden rests on the moving party. SEECO, Inc. v. Hales, 334 Ark. 134, 969 S.W.2d 193 (1998); Turnbow, supra. III. Discussion A. No Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct The circuit court explicitly declined to find that Owen violated any rule of professional conduct. This finding is supported by the record. James alleged violations of Rules 1.7, 3.4, 4.2, and 7.3. However, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the essential elements of any such violation. Rule 1.7 covers conflicts of interest between current clients, providing as follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A c