Phillip Floyd, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed an interlocutory order disqualifying Gerald K. Crow from representing Floyd because Crow had personally and substantially participated in Floyd’s criminal case as the presiding judge. It held that issuing the arrest warrant and presiding over the plea-and-arraignment hearing were matters of clear and weighty importance under Rule 1.12, and that the State’s written consent was therefore required. Chief Justice Brill concurred on appearance-of-impropriety grounds, while Justices Baker and Hart dissented because they viewed Crow’s participation as remote or administrative and insufficient to overcome Floyd’s choice of counsel.