Reinstatement Denied

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a Disciplinary Hearing Commission decision to deny reinstatement to a disbarred attorney

Petitioner was licensed to practice law in North Carolina in 1997.

In January 2009, Petitioner was appointed to represent a client in a juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency case. The client separately hired Petitioner to serve as counsel in a domestic matter involving her estranged husband. During the representation, Petitioner and his client engaged in a sexual relationship for approximately three months.

In September 2009, Petitioner ran for a public office position. Around the same time, the client’s estranged husband learned about the sexual relationship and informed Petitioner he planned to file a lawsuit for alienation of affection.

Petitioner prepared a false affidavit for his client sign, which denied any sexual relations. Petitioner threatened his client by telling her that if she did not sign the affidavit, “he would see to it that she would lose custody of her children.” Petitioner also told his client that she should “watch her back” because if she did not cooperate, things would “get ugly.”

The client’s estranged husband filed suit against Petitioner in January 2010. Petitioner filed a suit against his client and her estranged husband, falsely asserting that the client defamed him by disclosing their sexual relations and also falsely asserting his client had fabricated emails between Petitioner and herself. Petitioner’s legal assistant knew about the relationship with the client. After the legal assistant informed Petitioner she would not lie under oath for him, Petitioner stated, “then you know I’m going to have to kill you?”

Petitioner was charged criminally with felonies of obstruction of justice and suborning perjury. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of communicating threats and obstruction of justice. Petitioner subsequently responded to a Letter of Notice from the Grievance Committee of the State Bar concerning the misconduct. At his disciplinary hearing, the DHC found more than sufficient evidence to support disbarment of Petitioner.

Reinstatement evidence

In Petitioner’s July 2022 sworn response to the State Bar’s interrogatories in this case, he maintained the position that the only purpose of the affidavit was to deceive his wife and that he had never used it for legal purposes. This was proven to be false, as Petitioner used the affidavit to support his denial of sexual relations with his client to the State Bar.

Additionally, in the most recent reinstatement hearing, Petitioner still denies that he made any threats to his former client or employee. The DHC also found that Petitioner failed to acknowledge, or take responsibility for, any personal characteristics which made it possible for him to engage in the misconduct. The DHC found this as fact based on Petitioner’s testimony that his misconduct was due to the pressure he was under during his campaign running for District Attorney. Additionally, testimony was entered from three lawyers, who previously represented Petitioner’s former client. All opined Petitioner’s reinstatement would be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar.

Conclusion

Based on the whole record before us, we hold that there was substantial evidence to show facts supporting the conclusion of law in the DHC’s decision. We discern no abuse of discretion and, therefore, affirm the DHC’s decision.

The findings of misconduct and sanction order is linked here. (Mike Frisch)