Little Rock attorneys Chris Corbitt and Robert Steinbuch have asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to permanently remove Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox from the bench, calling his continued presence on the case “a stain upon the entire judicial system.”
The request, filed this week, escalates a dispute that grew out of a 2022 lawsuit challenging a Little Rock City Hall policy on firearms. Corbitt and Steinbuch, who represent the plaintiff in the case, have been fighting for over three years to have Fox removed, arguing he cannot be impartial.
The attorneys’ filing marks the latest turn in what has become an increasingly contentious legal battle. Details of the original 2022 suit were not immediately available, but court records show the case has generated significant procedural conflict between the plaintiff’s legal team and Judge Fox.
In their request to the state’s highest court, Corbitt and Steinbuch laid out their argument for why Fox should be permanently removed from the bench. The filing characterized Fox’s involvement in the case as fundamentally incompatible with judicial impartiality.
The Arkansas Supreme Court will now review the attorneys’ request. It’s unclear when the court might rule on whether to remove Fox from the case — or from the bench entirely.
Fox has served as a Pulaski County Circuit Judge for years. The Little Rock-based court handles a significant portion of the state’s most serious criminal and civil cases.
This isn’t the first time Corbitt and Steinbuch have sought to have Fox removed from the case. Previous attempts to have the judge recuse or be removed were unsuccessful in lower courts, prompting the attorneys to take their request directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The case has drawn attention within Arkansas legal circles as an unusual escalation of judicial disqualification proceedings. Removal of a sitting circuit judge is rare in the state and requires substantial evidence of bias or misconduct.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has not indicated whether it will hold oral arguments in the matter. The court’s decision could have implications beyond this single case, potentially affecting how judicial recusal requests are handled in future proceedings.
Source: NWA Democrat Gazette
