Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Arkansas T&E solo who knows Title 28 (Arkansas’s own Wills, Estates and Fiduciary Relationships code) cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead rules, the Medicaid (DHS / ARChoices) waiver posture, whether the latest Arkansas Supreme Court ethics rule changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in Arkansas lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last seven days that I think actually matter to a Arkansas T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
Per the Court’s order, In re Creation of Administrative Order No. 25 (2025 Ark. 117, June 5, 2025) governs generative-AI use with court data: it bars AOC staff, clerks, and CourtConnect holders from exposing internal court data to generative AI, and cross-references the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
For an Arkansas solo, the direct lesson is data discipline: anything you draw from court systems or matter files is not something to paste into a public AI tool. The order signals how seriously the Arkansas judiciary treats AI-and-confidentiality, and it pairs with the RPC amendments below to put AI output squarely inside your own professional responsibility. Set a firm rule against feeding court or client data to consumer AI.
In re Creation of Admin. Order No. 25 (AI), 2025 Ark. 117 (June 5, 2025) · arcourts.gov · Admin. Order No. 25
Per the Court’s per curiam, 2025 Ark. 115 amended Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 and the Preamble to place the output of generative AI within the supervising attorney’s responsibility, with competence and confidentiality reinforced through Rule 1.6.
For an Arkansas solo, this closes any argument that AI is a black box you aren’t answerable for: under amended RPC 5.3, AI output is treated like the work of a nonlawyer assistant you supervise, so you own its accuracy and its confidentiality posture. Verify AI-generated citations against the primary source every time, and keep client-confidential information out of tool inputs — the rule now makes both your direct responsibility.
In re Amendments to the Ark. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115 · 2025 Ark. 115
Per the per curiam, Arkansas DHS v. April Ward and Minor Child, 2025 Ark. 217 (No. CV-25-758, Dec. 11, 2025), the Court issued a show-cause order to an attorney ad litem over defective, suspected AI-generated citations, requiring her to submit the full text of every cited opinion and statute plus an explanatory affidavit under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 11(d).
For an Arkansas solo, this is the rules above with teeth: the Court will demand the full text of every authority you cite and an affidavit explaining defective citations — a direct sanction risk for anyone who files AI output without checking it. The practical safeguard is simple and now mandatory in spirit: read and verify each cited opinion and statute before it goes in a filing, every time.
Ark. DHS v. April Ward and Minor Child, 2025 Ark. 217 (No. CV-25-758, Dec. 11, 2025) (per curiam) · 2025 Ark. 217
Decisions from the courts that bind an Arkansas practitioner — the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and the Eighth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
Across the Arkansas appellate courts and the federal courts covering Arkansas, no qualifying trusts-and-estates or estate-recovery decision has been verified for this period. Per the lane’s no-invent rule, this row says so plainly rather than inflating a holding. The lane reads each opinion before it lands here, and reads-and-discards Medicaid program/provider litigation as not T&E.
Nothing to re-paper from the bench this period; controlling authority is unchanged.
Awaiting verified weekly signal — CourtListener used for discovery only, never cited as authority.
This slot holds the next significant trusts-and-estates or estate-recovery decision from Arkansas’s appellate courts or the federal courts covering Arkansas. When the trailing window has no new ruling, this row says so plainly rather than inventing one.
[Per-state “what this means today” paragraph lands here once a ruling is populated — otherwise: nothing to re-paper from the bench this period; controlling authority unchanged.]
Official reporter · court · date — never courtlistener.com
This week in Arkansas for the T&E solo with Arkansas Medicaid (ARChoices) clients: the developments from the Arkansas Bar Association, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the Arkansas DHS Medicaid program that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren't indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.