Arkansas House Bill HB1618

Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/25
• Refer: 2/27/25
• Report Pass: 3/12/25
• Engrossed: 3/17/25
• Refer: 3/17/25
• Report Pass: 4/1/25
• Enrolled: 4/8/25
• Chaptered: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

To Amend The Law Concerning The Election, Appointment, And Contracting Of A Municipal Attorney.

Summary

HB1618 amends Arkansas law governing municipal attorneys for cities of the second class, incorporated towns, and certain first-class mayor-council cities. For second-class cities and incorporated towns, the bill clarifies that a municipal attorney may be elected or appointed, and that a city may instead contract with an attorney for legal representation. It also specifies that an attorney elected or appointed to the office must be a licensed Arkansas attorney and must reside within the municipal boundaries, while a contracted attorney does not have to reside in the city or town. The bill also sets the term of office for an elected or appointed municipal attorney at four years and adds language confirming that these municipalities may join with other municipalities to jointly purchase attorney services under existing law. In addition, HB1618 repeals two older statutes that separately governed city attorneys in smaller mayor-council cities of fewer than 10,000 and fewer than 5,000 residents, consolidating and updating the framework for selecting or contracting municipal legal counsel.

Impact

HB1618 changes the statutory structure for municipal legal representation by replacing repealed population-based provisions with updated rules in § 14-42-112 and by preserving local flexibility to elect, appoint, or contract for attorney services. It affects cities of the second class, incorporated towns, and certain first-class cities that previously operated under repealed sections, while also clarifying residency requirements for officeholders versus outside contractors. The bill likely reduces ambiguity in local government hiring and contracting practices and may expand access to legal services for smaller municipalities that cannot fill the office locally.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House and Senate third readings unanimously, with 93-0 and 34-0 votes, respectively. The lack of recorded committee discussion in the provided materials suggests little visible controversy and a general consensus that the measure was a technical or clarifying update to municipal attorney law.

Contention

No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The main policy distinction in the bill is between requiring residency for elected or appointed municipal attorneys and allowing nonresident attorneys to be contracted for representation, but the unanimous votes indicate that this distinction was not politically divisive. The repeal of older city-attorney statutes and consolidation into the revised municipal-attorney framework also appears to have been accepted without opposition.