Brown v. Kelton

2011 Ark. 93 (2011)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Brown v. Kelton

Arkansas Supreme Court
2011 Ark. 93 (2011)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Brian Kelton (plaintiff) sued Mid-Central Plumbing Company Inc. (Mid-Central) and its sole shareholder, John Rogers (defendants) after a vehicle Mid-Central owned struck Kelton’s vehicle. Truck Insurance Exchange (TEI) insured Mid-Central and Rogers, while Farmers’ Insurance Exchange (FIE) reinsured TEI. Attorney Stephen Brown worked in-house for FIE, which was not a party to the lawsuit. About three months into the litigation, the attorney for Mid-Central and Rogers filed a motion to substitute Brown to represent them in the lawsuit. Kelton objected. The trial court disqualified Brown, reasoning his representing Mid-Central and Rogers would amount to FIE engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and create a nonwaivable conflict of interest. Brown, Mid-Central, and Rogers appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Danielson, J.)

Concurrence (Hannah, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 965,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 965,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 965,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Legal Ethics

Key Terms

  • Conflict of InterestA genuine or perceived incompatibility between two competing interests, which generally arises when a person's primary interest is unduly influenced by a secondary interest (for example, a conflict between a person's employment duties and the person's personal financial interests). The main types of conflict of interest are familial/intimate relationships, financial, and confidential information. In the legal-ethics context, in the event of a conflict between the interests of two of a lawyer's clients—including former clients—the lawyer cannot represent one client in a matter that could be adverse to the other client's interests without the prior, informed consent of both clients.
  • DisqualificationThe exercise of judicial authority to prohibit an attorney or law firm from representing a party with respect to all or a portion of particular legal proceedings.
  • Unauthorized Practice of LawGiving legal advice or representation without valid licensure.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial