Suspension Order Vacated Due To Lack Of Notice

The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated an order of a one-year suspension due to a lack of notice

Mr. Inhaber argues he did not have proper notice of the hearing and the lack of a verbatim transcript deprived him of the ability to appeal the findings of fact in the suspension order. After careful review, we hold Mr. Inhaber did not receive proper notice of the hearing and vacate the order.

The accused attorney represents clients in traffic court

During the morning session on 20 July 2022, either in open court or outside the courtroom, a dispute arose between ADA Rushton and Mr. Inhaber. ADA Rushton believed Mr. Inhaber had secured agreement to re-calendar the two cases by falsely representing they were both on the present day’s calendar. ADA Rushton rescinded her agreement to re-calendar when she learned that both matters were not on the calendar.

During the dispute, Mr. Inhaber purportedly raised his voice and acted unprofessionally. The dispute supposedly created a delay of approximately ten minutes to the court’s proceedings. Although Mr. Inhaber apologized for his actions, he maintained that he had not misrepresented that the cases were on the current docket. Assistant District Attorney Megan Powell (“ADA Powell”) indicated she overheard a portion of the interaction between ADA Rushton and Mr. Inhaber and that Mr. Inhaber led ADA Rushton to believe both cases were calendared for 20 July 2022.

Mr. Inhaber was instructed by an assistant district attorney to return to court for the afternoon session—he believed he was being summoned to address a client’s traffic citation. However, at the conclusion of the afternoon session, the trial court held a disciplinary hearing regarding the events which occurred in the morning session and earlier that month. This disciplinary hearing was not transcribed; the record of this proceeding is based upon Mr. Inhaber’s transcriptive narrative (“Narrative”) made pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 9(c) (2023) and the suspension order. In the prefatory clause of the order, the trial court indicated Mr. Inhaber was provided notice of a disciplinary hearing, without indicating whether the notice identified the conduct subject to sanctions and the proposed sanctions. The Narrative does not indicate that Mr. Inhaber objected to lack of notice at the hearing.

During the hearing, ADA Rushton and ADA Powell testified and a third Assistant District Attorney Reagan Hill (“ADA Hill”) was in attendance. The Narrative indicates the trial court may not have taken sworn testimony from witnesses. According to the Narrative, Mr. Inhaber was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses during the hearing.

The suspension order was entered three days later.

The court here

After review of the record, we hold the notice of the disciplinary hearing against Mr. Inhaber was insufficient because it did not identify the charges against him or the possible sanctions. Accordingly, we vacate the order.

(Mike Frisch)