Reinstatement Denied

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a reinstatement petition

Petitioner was licensed to practice law and admitted to the State Bar on 29 June 1988. Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina of one count of: conspiracy to commit mail fraud, selling unregistered securities, laundering money instruments, engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, making false statements, aiding and abetting the sell of unregistered securities, and obstructing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proceedings and four counts of: mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud on 18 November 2010. See United States of America v. Gregory Bartko, 728 F.3d 327 (2013).

Petitioner tendered an affidavit and surrendered his license to practice law to the Wake County Superior Court on 4 January 2011. Petitioner was disbarred by order entered on 8 February 2011. Petitioner was sentenced to an active term of 23 years in the United States Bureau of Prisons, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release with the United States Probation Office. He was ordered to pay restitution of $885,946.89 to more than 170 victims.

Petitioner was incarcerated at a United States Bureau of Prisons facility until 9 September 2020 when he was transferred to home confinement during the COVID19 pandemic to serve out the remainder of his sentence. Petitioner is scheduled for release to the United States Probation Office on 21 June 2029.

The State Bar moved to dismiss his petition

The DHC did not err in granting the State Bar’s motion to dismiss. In light of our holding, we need not address Petitioner’s remaining arguments relating to the State Bar’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s allegations are insufficient “to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” Christmas, 192 N.C. App. at 231, 664 S.E.2d at 652, or to assert any grounds to carry his burden by “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” to meet the requirements for reinstatement as forth in our Administrative Code. 27 N.C.A.C. 1B.0129(3).

Conclusion

Petitioner has not complied with execution and terms of the judgment and completed his federal sentence, and he has not had his citizenship restored following serving his sentence. The DHC does not have jurisdiction to hear motions for declaratory relief under the Administrative Procedures Act. The DHC did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s petition and motion. The State Bar Council did not have appellate jurisdiction over a final order of the DHC. Id. The orders of the DHC and State Bar Council are affirmed. It is so ordered.

(Mike Frisch)