The North Carolina General Court of Justice Superior Division disbarred an attorney

Crump intentionally engaged in conduct that foreseeably undermines public faith in the legal system, including making allegations of judicial bias as a regular practice and publishing false and unfounded allegations of corruption and malfeasance on social media. In a seemingly endless stream of Facebook posts between March and August of this year, Crump accused Deputies Counsel Bannon and Lee of engaging in a conspiracy with members of the judiciary and the
Montgomery County Bar to silence her and accusing Montgomery County DSS and several people associated therewith of child trafficking. In service of the latter, Crump recorded a telephone conversation with DSS attorney Jeannie Blake without Blake’s consent and subsequently posted a heavily edited version of the recording on Facebook claiming that the recording substantiated her allegations of child trafficking. Crump’s unwarranted attacks on judges’ impartiality and the basic integrity of the court system and governmental agencies appear calculated to destroy confidence in the judicial process.

The attorney did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding but

Consistent with this pattern, Crump has made incendiary and unsupported allegations against opposing counsel and adverse witnesses in this disciplinary case. Crump has accused opposing counsel of illegally recording a May 2022 conversation between she and her then-attorney, recently alleging in a filing that Deputies Counsel Bannon and Lee had engaged in violations of the Wiretap Act. Crump has accused members of the Montgomery County district court bench of sexism and of prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community and, on multiple occasions, has accused the director of Montgomery County DSS, DSS attorney Jeannie Blake, and Montgomery County Sheriffs Office reserve deputy Ray Dawson of running a child trafficking ring and engaging in felony obstruction of justice.

Crump’s tendency to prolong and complicate adversarial proceedings, coupled with her proclivity for baselessly accusing his adversaries of wrongdoing, interferes with opposing counsel’s ability to effectively and efficiently represent their clients’ interest.

The attorney has appealed. (Mike Frisch)