dissenting. The majority refuses to issue a writ of certiorari to disqualify Chancellor Alice S. Gray from presiding in divorce proceedings between Pamela Skokos and Theodore Skokos. The refusal is based on the contention that the writ of certiorari does not lie to control a trial judge’s discretion. The majority also maintains that Ms. Skokos has another adequate remedy: the remedy of appeal at the close of this case. Because appeal is a woefully inadequate, not to mention, inequitable, remedy in this case, I respectfully dissent.
The transcript and briefs in this case indicate very clearly that there is acrimony between Chancellor Gray and the attorneys for Ms. Skokos. In fact, Chancellor Gray has made comments on the evidence which indicate her displeasure with Ms. Skokos as well. She challenged Ms. Skokos’ credibility and she advised Ms. Skokos that she felt Mr. Skokos was “more conciliatory.” She commented that it appeared that Ms. Skokos “wanted everything” — specifically, custody of the parties’ minor child, possession of the marital home, and money. It is not mentioned by the Court .that Mr. Skokos also wants those same things. In fact, in the majority of divorce cases, these are the common bones of contention, and the reasons for litigation. They hardly were revolutionary requests. Chancellor Gray has a duty to be “fair and impartial” to all litigants in her court, and her commentary is unnecessary.
The animosity between Chancellor Gray and Ms. Skokos’ counsel is evident. This is most unfortunate. Perhaps Ms. Skokos’ attorneys “goaded” her into her actions. It does not matter. Everybody in that courtroom who holds a license to practice law or a judgeship is duty bound, honor bound, and ethically bound to be professional to one another and to the litigants.
The Chancellor on more than one occasion refused to allow attorneys for Ms. Skokos to make a record. She interrupted during their questions and their arguments. She routinely reminded them of the time constraints being imposed by the Court. She engaged in a running commentary about their demeanor. She also testified from the bench during a recusal hearing.
Yet the majority believes that appeal will be an adequate remedy, distinguishing this case from Foreman v. State, 317 Ark. 146, 875 S.W. 2d 853 (1994) in which we granted a writ of certiorari. In Foreman, we granted the writ because Mr. Foreman would otherwise have been incarcerated until tried. While it is not argued that a contested divorce case is as difficult to live through as an incarceration, the similarities should not be overlooked. If Ms. Skokos is required to wait until an appeal occurs, she is subject to the continuing lack of dignity she has experienced to date. Her husband has control of the marital assets, her attorneys cannot finish their sentences without being interrupted by the Court or held in contempt, and it is doubtful whether a compíete record can be properly made. If Ms. Skokos has not already lost all respect she had for our justice system, she will. In addition to those problems, this Court’s majority has sanctioned an appeal which can only be costly to both litigants, as well as to their minor daughter. It is mystifying to see the majority invite an appeal to this Court, while holding that an appeal based on the facts of this case is an adequate remedy.
This Court has supervisory powers over lower courts through Article 7, Section 4, which states:
The Supreme Court, except in cases otherwise provided by this Constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction only, which shall be coextensive with the State, under such restrictions as may from time to time be prescribed by law. It shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts of law and equity; and, in aid of its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction, it shall have power to issue writs of error and supersedeas, certiorari, habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto, and, other remedial writs, and to hear and determine the same. Its judges shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State, and shall severally have power to issue any of the aforesaid writs.
Those powers although historically used at the appellate level, are not limited by the constitutional language, by statute, or by case law, to appeals. See Foreman v. State, supra. Because we are constitutionally mandated to be “conservators of the peace” throughout the State, we should exercise those powers for the benefits of Mr. Skokos, Ms. Skokos, Mandy Skokos, Chancellor Gray and each attorney involved. This case has deteriorated to a level that causes the need for drastic intervention and the earliest possible resolution. Further, we have held that, in order for the writ of certiorari to lie, we must be presented with “.. . plain, manifest, clear and gross abuse of discretion.” Shorey v. Thompson, 295 Ark. 664, 750 S.W. 2d 955 (1988). We have been so presented in the instant case, and the writ should have been issued.
The other matters raised by Ms. Skokos concern the disqualification of Mr. Les Hollingsworth, one of the attorneys for Mr. Skokos and of Arkie Byrd, the attorney ad litem for Mandy Skokos. Since the writ is denied, it is unnecessary to reach these issues. Parenthetically, however, it is noted that if every attorney who contributes to the campaign of a state court judge is automatically suspect and should be disqualified, both the bench and the bar of this great little state' are in serious trouble.
For all the foregoing reasons, and because of the importance of the preservation of the integrity and dignity of the justice system, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, and would grant the writ.