Justin Zachary, Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Hudson's attorney, on Monday endorsed Justice Karen Baker's objections to the high court ruling that called for him and Hudson to be sanctioned, stating that "changes" need to be made to the state's highest court.

A five-member majority last week threw out a lower-court lawsuit by Hudson as she tried to assert ownership of her email correspondence to prevent some of those materials from being released to an Arkansas Business reporter.

The release was approved by the majority after a court staffer initially refused to turn them over due to a provision of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act that shields correspondence of the state's appeals court judges and some other Constitutional officers.

The high court ruled that the lower court did not have the authority to intervene in what the justices described as confidential administrative actions. The majority ruling further ordered Hudson and Zachary to undergo an ethics probe for the suit, which included what the high court described as "flagrant breaches of confidentiality and the public trust."

Baker opposed the decision, releasing a dissent on Friday that said her five colleagues should be investigated. She said the majority, Chief Justice Dan Kemp and Justices Cody Hiland, Barbara Webb, Shawn Womack and Rhonda Wood, "breached the public trust" in an "unprecedented misuse of ... authority."

Wood and Baker are both seeking the chief justice seat in next month's election to replace Kemp.

"I think (Baker's) dissent is 100% factually and legally correct," Zachary said in his release. "However, the most important note I took from it was the call to the legal community to continue to litigate these types of issues. As I have done my entire legal career, I'll stand ready to answer that call and I'm confident that you'll find others in the legal community will as well.

"What is apparent from all of this is that there are some needed changes up at the Supreme Court," he continued. "For example, giving your colleagues 23 minutes to read and respond to a majority opinion is not how the Supreme Court has historically operated and fails to promote a fulsome and robust analysis of the issues. Instead, it suggests that the majority simply did not want to hear or discuss any other opinion."

Zachary did not specify what changes he might favor. The 23 minutes he referred to stems from Baker's dissent in which she notes the majority gave her only that long to consider their dismissal and sanctions order before the ruling was issued. They also declined her request for the panel to take more time to study and discuss the issue, Baker stated in her dissent. The speed with which the ruling was released was a "break from the court's normal practices."

Baker also warned that by seeking sanctions against Zachary, the majority had "weaponized" the agency overseeing attorney conduct and was further setting a concerning precedent that could stifle litigation and dissuade other lawyers from taking up difficult issues.

Zachary said he is grateful for the support he's received over the past week since the ruling was published.

(What) those five Justices did to me personally was a gut check. I had to sit down with my kids, my 10-year-old and 12-year-old and explain to them that at times standing up for what is right and shining light on issues that need change is not easy and people will absolutely try to stop you," Zachary stated. "One of the greatest feelings in life is knowing that those who love you and support you have your back. The hundreds of phone calls, text messages, and emails I've received over the past week from my colleagues in the legal community have reinvigorated and strengthened me."