Otis Campbell v. Asbury Automotive, Inc. Asbury Automotive…

Summary

The court held that the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act may provide a cause of action against nonlawyers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, reversed summary judgment on that claim, and held that the existence of an express contract does not automatically bar unjust-enrichment relief. It affirmed the denial of the proposed fiduciary-duty amendment but reversed the denial of class certification for the financing-fee claim because typicality, predominance, and superiority were satisfied by the alleged common conduct. On cross-appeal, the court affirmed that Asbury’s fee-based completion of legal forms constituted unauthorized practice of law, that Asbury owed fiduciary duties to customers, and that it could not rely in good faith on a statute contrary to established public policy. Justice Brown, dissenting in part and concurring in part, would have rejected the ADTPA remedy for unauthorized practice of law but agreed with the remaining conclusions.