Tarred Heel
A summary of a recent disciplinary order from the web page of the North Carolina State Bar
Peter Romary of Hillsborough communicated with various City of Greenville officials in an effort to obtain law enforcement surveillance video footage of then-ECU Interim Chancellor Dan Gerlach allegedly engaging in inappropriate behavior while intoxicated. During these communications, Romary asserted that he was representing members of the UNC Board of Governors and the ECU Board of Trustees, members of the North Carolina General Assembly, and the State (and National) Police Benevolent Association. These assertions were misrepresentations in that a reasonable lawyer under the circumstances would not have formed the opinion that these individuals and entities were his clients. During these communications, Romary also alleged without basis in fact that the law firm investigating the matter for the UNC system had potentially engaged in misconduct. Romary later filed a petition with the court to obtain the video footage in which he purported to represent an organization that was not his client. Romary was reprimanded by the Grievance Committee for, among other things, making false statements of material fact to a third party and to a tribunal. In determining that reprimand was the appropriate discipline, the committee took into consideration Romary’s lack of prior discipline and the isolated nature of this incident.
The reprimand is linked here.
In the fall of 2019, news broke that ECU Interim Chancellor Dan Gerlach had allegedly become intoxicated while out at various establishments in Greenville among ECU students, after which he drove his car. Soon thereafter, you began communicating with the Greenville Police Department and the City Attorney in an effort to obtain video footage related to the Gerlach matter from police surveillance cameras. During these communications, you asserted that you were representing: (a) multiple members of the UNC Board of Governors and the ECU Board of Trustees; (b) members of the North Carolina General Assembly, whose desires and intentions you claimed to be relaying to the City Attorney; and (c) the State (and National) Police Benevolent Association (PBA). All of these assertions were misrepresentations in violation of Rule 8.4(c), in that a reasonable lawyer under the circumstances would not have formed the opinion that these individuals and entities were his clients. During these communications, you also alleged without basis in fact that the law firm investigating the matter for the UNC system had potentially engaged in misconduct, in violation of Rule 3.1.
After negotiating a consent order with the City Attorney, you filed a petition (purportedly on behalf of two clients, one of which was the State PBA) to obtain the video footage. By representing to the City Attorney that you were acting on behalf of the State PBA, you made a false statement of material fact to a third party in violation of Rule 4.1, and by filing a petition with the court on behalf of an organization that had not authorized the filing, you made a false statement of material fact to the tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1).
(Mike Frisch)