Featured – Caroline Curry Lewis, Managing Bankruptcy Attorney

June 29, 2015


Caroline Curry Lewis
Little Rock, Arkansas
phone (501) 221-0444
800-603-5100 (Toll Free)
fax 501-221-0443

Email Caroline C. Lewis

Caroline C. Lewis is originally from Gurdon, Arkansas. Caroline obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree in Russian and Political Science from Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. As an undergraduate, Caroline spent a semester abroad in Almaty, Kazakhstan, where she studied Russian. She earned her Master of Arts degree in Slavic Languages and Literatures from the University of Kansas in 1998. Caroline enrolled in law school at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and obtained her law degree in 2002.

While in law school, she served as the Research Editor of the Arkansas Law Review . Caroline was also an active member of the moot court program. As a competitor, she was honored for her writing and oral advocacy skills in the intramural and National Moot Court competitions. Caroline served on the Board of Advocates as the Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Competition Chair. For her service to the law school and her achievements in moot court, Caroline was awarded the 2002 Outstanding Service to the Law School Award and received the 2002 Appellate Advocacy Prize.

Caroline received the Vincent W. Foster, Jr., Scholarship two years in a row. During her first interview with the scholarship selection committee, she met the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, who served on the committee. Not only was she awarded the scholarship, Caroline was invited to serve Judge Wilson as his law clerk for two years after completing law school, an invitation she happily accepted. She has worked in the areas of insurance defense, including subrogation, workers’ compensation defense, complex commercial and antitrust litigation, estate planning and probate law, and the development of business entities in Arkansas. She has submitted appeals to the Full Commission of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Arkansas Court of Appeals, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Caroline joined The Brad Hendricks Law Firm January 2009. Caroline’s primary focus is to serve the firm and its clients in any requested capacity with the ultimate goal of helping to obtain a favorable result for each client.

Caroline and her husband, Stephen, reside in Little Rock, Arkansas, with their daughter, Catherine.

Areas of Practice:

Bar Admissions:

  • Arkansas, 2002
  • U.S. District Court Western District of Arkansas, 2003
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas, 2003
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, 2003
  • U.S. Supreme Court, 2006


  • University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Leflar Law Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas
  • University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1998
  • M.A.
  • Major: Slavic Languages and Literatures
  • Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, Arkansas, 1996
  • B.A.,
  • Major: Russian and Political Science

Published Works:

  • In re Guardianship of S.H.: The Constitutionality of the Parental Presumption in Termination of (Voluntary) Guardianship Cases, ATLA Docket (Spring 2013)
  • City of Caddo Valley v. George: Stop or I’ll Sue! Police Chases and the Price Cities May Pay, 55 ARK. L. REV. 425 (2002)
  • Sample Arguments: The FDCPA’s Bona Fide Error Defense Should Be Applied to Mistakes in Interpretation of State Collections Law, 2001 ARK. L. NOTES 117 (2001)

Representative Cases:

  • In re Ballinger, 2013 WL 6383011 (Bkrtcy. E.D. Ark. 2013)
  • Austin v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla, 365 Ark. 38, 226 S.W.3d 814 (2006)
  • Automated Conveyor Systems v. Hill, 362 Ark. 215, 208 S.W.3d 136 (2005)
  • Caldwell v. TEC Corp., 423 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2005)
  • Cottage Cafe, Inc. v. Collette, 94 Ark. App. 72, 224 SW. 3d 27 (2006)
  • Culpepper v. Vilsack, 664 F.3d 252 (8th Cir. 2011)
  • Davis v. Jefferson Hospital Association, 685 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2012)
  • McLeod v. Cavenaugh Ford Lincoln, LLC, WL 4402499 (E.D. Ark. 2013)
  • Pina v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 31 Ark. App. 77, 208 S.W.3d 236 (2005)
  • Swaim v. Wal-Mart Associates , 91 Ark. App. 120, 208 SW 3d 837 (2005)

Honors and Awards:

  • Arkansas Law Review Research Editor, 2001 – 2002
  • Board of Advocates Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Competition Chair, 2001 – 2002
  • Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Championship Team and Recipient of the Outstanding Oralist (Prize Round) Award, 2001
  • National Moot Court Competition Regional Quarterfinalist and Best Brief Award Recipient, 2001
  • Vincent Foster Scholarship Recipient, 2001
  • Vincent Foster Scholarship Recipient, 2002
  • Outstanding Service to the Law School Award, 2002
  • Appellate Advocacy Prize, 2002
  • Nominee, 2014 American Institute of Bankruptcy Attorneys “10 Best” Attorneys for the State of Arkansas

Professional Associations and Memberships:

  • Arkansas Bar Association
  • Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association
  • Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention Committee Member

Past Employment Positions:

  • Roberts Law Firm, P.A., Associate, 2004 – 2007
  • US District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Law Clerk, 2002

Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.


Brad Hendricks Among National Trial Lawyers Top 100

November 11, 2013

NTL-top-100-member Brad Hendricks

Brad Hendricks has been named as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer by The National Trial Lawyers Association. He’s also a member of the Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Association and the Business Tort Trial Lawyers Association. The National Trial Lawyers is a professional organization of America’s top trial lawyers. Membership in the organization is by invitation only and is extended to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership in their respective state or major geographical area. The National Trial Lawyers has evaluated Mr. Hendricks’ qualifications and extended an exclusive invitation to him based on his performance as an exceptional trial lawyer in the practice area of Civil Plaintiff law.

Preventable Hospital Errors

October 25, 2013

by:  George Wise

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published a widely cited study called To Err Is Human. In it we learned that 98,000 people were dying every year from preventable errors in hospitals. Unfortunately, that study underestimated the number of deaths. According to a new study just out from the prestigious Journal of Patient Safety, four times as many people die from preventable medical errors than we thought, as many as 440,000 a year.

Read the study here.

Medical errors now claim the spot as the third leading cause of death in the United States, ahead of auto accidents and diabetes. Only cancer and heart disease cause more deaths. It is likely the estimates in this new study will replace the Institute of Medicine estimates from 1999. That means hospitals are killing off the equivalent of the entire population of Pulaski County, Arkansas every year. More than a thousand people a day are dying from preventable errors.

These deaths are not from the illness which hospitalized the patient in the first place. Patients are dying from preventable errors due to a lack of emphasis on safety. These preventable errors are common and well known. A sponge left inside the surgical patient causing a massive infection. A massive medication overdose. Infections from contaminated equipment used at the bedside. Following safety rules prevents these errors.

When will it end? Society picks up the costs of these errors in the form of higher costs for hospital care. Employers lose good employees and thousands of dollars in lost productivity. Families needlessly lose loved ones. We need to insist that hospitals implement safety standards to eliminate these errors. Safety first should be a hospital’s motto.

Tort Deform Myth Busted

August 27, 2013

Arguments supporting restrictions on the right to a jury trial (mischaracterized as tort or lawsuit reform) are based primarily on myths and unsubstantiated anecdotes. One of these myths is that doctors practice defensive medicine more often in states without caps on damages; therefore, caps on damages will reduce defensive medicine. A new study busts this myth.

According to a study by the Center for Studying Health System Change in the August Health Affairs, physicians’ perception of their risk of malpractice liability predicts their practice of defensive medicine. Below is the abstract of the newly released study:

Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Aug;32(8):1383-91. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0233.


Despite widespread agreement that physicians who practice defensive medicine drive up health care costs, the extent to which defensive medicine increases costs is unclear. The differences in findings to date stem in part from the use of two distinct approaches for assessing physicians’ perceived malpractice risk. In this study we used an alternative strategy: We linked physicians’ responses regarding their levels of malpractice concern as reported in the 2008 Health Tracking Physician Survey to Medicare Parts A and B claims for the patients they treated during the study period, 2007-09. We found that physicians who reported a high level of malpractice concern were most likely to engage in practices that would be considered defensive when diagnosing patients who visited their offices with new complaints of chest pain, headache, or lower back pain. No consistent relationship was seen, however, when state-level indicators of malpractice risk replaced self-rated concern. Reducing defensive medicine may require approaches focused on physicians’ perceptions of legal risk and the underlying factors driving those perceptions.

The findings of this study suggest that malpractice reforms touted for years as reducing defensive medicine, such as caps on damages, do not change how physicians practice. On the other hand, one could certainly argue that there is actually no such thing as defensive medicine. Either a test or procedure is necessary or it is insurance fraud to bill for it.

Under the Arkansas Constitution, the right to a jury trial is protected by language which says, “The right to a jury trial shall remain inviolate…”. Inviolate means untouched and undisturbed. The right to a jury trial should remain untouched and undisturbed and not subject to restrictions based on myths.

5 Surprising Confessions of a Surgeon – ABC News

May 4, 2013

5 Surprising Confessions of a Surgeon – ABC News.

US News | Entertainment News | More ABC News Videos