journal 23,4 Layout 1 - North Carolina State BarLinkedIn and other social media, to referral services, to cyber security, to lawyer advertis-ing. We cannot regulate the Internet, but

JOURNALWINTER

2018

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR

IN THIS ISSUE

Our New President, G. Gray Wilson page 5One Last Outlook page 8

Recovering from Disaster page 20

THENORTH CAROLINA

STATE BAR

JOURNALWinter 2018

Volume 23, Number 4

EditorJennifer R. Duncan

© Copyright 2018 by the North CarolinaState Bar. All rights reserved. Periodicalspostage paid at Raleigh, NC, and additionaloffices. Opinions expressed by contributorsare not necessarily those of the NorthCarolina State Bar. POSTMASTER: Sendaddress changes to the North Carolina StateBar, PO Box 25908, Raleigh, NC 27611.The North Carolina Bar Journal invites thesubmission of unsolicited, original articles,essays, and book reviews. Submissions maybe made by mail or email ([email protected]) to the editor. Publishing and edi-torial decisions are based on the PublicationsCommittee’s and the editor’s judgment ofthe quality of the writing, the timeliness ofthe article, and the potential interest to thereaders of the Journal. The Journal reservesthe right to edit all manuscripts. The NorthCarolina State Bar Journal (ISSN 10928626)is published four times per year in March,June, September, and December under thedirection and supervision of the council ofthe North Carolina State Bar, PO Box25908, Raleigh, NC 27611. Member rate of$6.00 per year is included in dues.Nonmember rates $10.73 per year. Singlecopies $5.36. The Lawyer’s Handbook$16.09. Advertising rates available uponrequest. Direct inquiries to Director ofCommunications, the North Carolina StateBar, PO Box 25908, Raleigh, NorthCarolina 27611, tel. (919) 828-4620.

ncbar.govFollow us at:

Twitter: @NCStateBarFacebook: facebook.com/NCStateBar

F E A T U R E S

5 An Interview with the State Bar’s NewPresident, G. Gray Wilson

8 One Last Outlook—An Interview with Retiring Executive Director L. Thomas Lunsford II

12 Summer Session: The Morganton Decisions, 1847-1861By Thomas P. Davis

18 CounselorBy Ryan Stowe

20 Recovering from Disaster: “Helpers” in the Legal Community RespondBy Mary Irvine

22 Running ManBy G. Gray Wilson

3THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

D E P A R T M E N T S

24 The Disciplinary Department

36 Pathways to Wellbeing

28 Lawyer Assistance Program

30 IOLTA Update

32 Legal Specialization

34 Legal Ethics

36 Trust Accounting

38 Proposed Ethics Opinions

39 Rule Amendments

B A R U P D A T E S

41 In Memoriam

42 State Bar Swears In New Officers

43 Fifty-Year Lawyers Honored

44 Resolution of Appreciation

45 Client Security Fund

46 Law School Briefs

53 Annual Reports of Boards

50 Distinguished Service Award

51 February Bar Exam Applicants

54 Selected Financial Data

OfficersG. Gray Wilson, Winston-Salem

President 2018-2019C. Colon Willoughby Jr., Raleigh

President-Elect 2018-2019Barbara R. Christy, Greensboro

Vice-President 2018-2019Alice Neece Mine, Chapel Hill

Secretary-TreasurerJohn M. Silverstein, RaleighPast-President 2018-2019

CouncilorsBy Judicial District1: C. Everett Thompson II, Elizabeth

City2: G. Thomas Davis Jr., Swan

Quarter3A: Charles R. Hardee, Greenville3B: Debra L. Massie, Beaufort4: Robert W. Detwiler, Jacksonville5: W. Allen Cobb Jr., Wilmington6: W. Rob Lewis II, Ahoskie7: Randall B. Pridgen, Rocky Mount8: C. Branson Vickory III, Goldsboro9: Paul J. Stainback, Henderson9A: Alan S. Hicks, Roxboro10: Heidi C. Bloom, Raleigh

Walter E. Brock Jr., RaleighNicholas J. Dombalis II, RaleighTheodore C. Edwards II, RaleighKatherine Ann Frye, RaleighRobert Rader, RaleighDonna R. Rascoe, RaleighWarren Savage, Raleigh

11A: Eddie S. Winstead III, Sanford11B: Marcia H. Armstrong, Smithfield12: Lonnie M. Player Jr., Fayetteville

13: Michael R. Ramos, Shallotte14: Dorothy Hairston Mitchell,

DurhamWilliam S. Mills, Durham

15A: Charles E. Davis, Mebane15B: Charles Gordon Brown, Chapel Hill16A: Terry R. Garner, Laurinburg16B: David F. Branch Jr., Lumberton16C: Richard Buckner, Rockingham17A: Matthew W. Smith, Eden17B: Thomas W. Anderson, Pilot

Mountain18: Stephen E. Robertson, Greensboro18H: Raymond A. Bretzmann, High

Point19A: Herbert White, Concord19B: Clark R. Bell, Asheboro19C: Darrin D. Jordan, Salisbury19D: Richard Costanza, Southern Pines20A: John Webster, Albemarle20B: H. Ligon Bundy, Monroe21: Michael L. Robinson, Winston-

SalemKevin G. Williams, Winston-Salem

22A: Kimberly S. Taylor, Taylorsville22B: Sally Strohacker, Mocksville23: John S. Willardson, Wilkesboro24: Andrea N. Capua, Boone25: M. Alan LeCroy, Morganton26: David N. Allen, Charlotte

Robert C. Bowers, CharlotteA. Todd Brown, CharlotteMark P. Henriques, CharlotteDewitt McCarley, CharlotteNancy Black Norelli, CharlotteEben T. Rawls, Charlotte

27A: Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia

27B: Rebecca J. Pomeroy, Lincolnton28: Anna Hamrick, Asheville29A: H. Russell Neighbors, Marion29B: Christopher S. Stepp,

Hendersonville30: Gerald R. Collins Jr., Murphy

Public MembersThomas W. Elkins, RaleighDr. Joseph E. Johnson, GreensboroMohan Venkataraman, Morrisville

Executive DirectorL. Thomas Lunsford II

Assistant Executive DirectorAlice Neece Mine

CounselKatherine Jean

EditorJennifer R. Duncan

Publications Editorial BoardDarrin D. Jordan, ChairNancy Black Norelli, Vice ChairPhillip Bantz (Advisory Member)Richard G. BucknerAndrea CapuaMargaret Dickson (Advisory Member)John Gehring (Advisory Member)Ashley London (Advisory Member)Stephen E. RobertsonChristopher S. SteppJohn Webster

4 FALL 2018

Q: What can you tell us about yourupbringing?

I grew up in Boone, North Carolina, theson of a physician who was the last of a dyingbreed—the general practitioner. I livedthrough the blizzard of 1960 (23 days out ofschool), after which nothing really seemedthat bad any more. I have one sister and twobrothers, and all three of us boys attendedDavidson College over a period of six years,but both of my brothers became doctors. Iwas the black sheep who decided to go to lawschool because I liked to write and argue morethan the sight of blood.Q: When and how did you decide to becomea lawyer?

I decided to become a lawyer sittingaround the dinner table as a boy arguing withmy family, and a trial lawyer was the onlykind I was ever interested in becoming. Therewere a lot of storytellers in the mountains, andoccasionally some of them were truthful,which I found fascinating.Q: Can you tell us how your career as alawyer has evolved?

When I finished law school (I could notget into a good school in North Carolina so Iwent out of state to Duke), I landed a jobwith what is now the Kilpatrick Townsendfirm in Winston-Salem. I stayed there for 15years and watched the firm grow from 20 to120 lawyers before I decided that was too bigand struck out on my own with three otherattorneys. I had my own firm for over 25 yearsuntil I decided I needed to get a retirementplan in place, primarily for my three youngerpartners. The Nelson Mullins office inWinston-Salem turned out to be a perfect fit,and I have wondered why everyone has beenso delightful to work with over the past yearsince we merged. How I blundered into such

a great practice situation is beyond me, but Iplan to stay here as long as they continue totolerate me.Q: How and why did you become involvedin State Bar work?

My first leadership position was chair ofthe Forsyth County Young LawyersAssociation in 1980-81. I then became activein the North Carolina Bar Associationbecause my first firm had several past presi-dents on the roster. I was chair of the YoungLawyers Division in 1986-87, then presidentof the Bar Association in 2004-05. I hadserved as an advisory member of the EthicsCommittee of the State Bar during the inter-im. After I returned to the full-time practiceof law in 2006, one of our State Bar coun-cilors suddenly resigned, prompting the elec-

tion of a replacement. I threw my name intothe hat after several others declared their can-didacy, survived at least one run-off, and waselected to the vacant seat along with now PastPresident Jim Fox.Q: What has your experience on the BarCouncil been like and how has it differedfrom what you anticipated?

The Bar Council is an entirely differentorganism from the Bar Association. I wasassigned to one of the GrievanceSubcommittees outright, and the delibera-tions within that body were a sea change frommy former moorings in other professionalorganizations. Debate in a number of com-mittee assignments was vigorous but alwaysrespectful, and I met a cross-section of fellowcouncilors from across the state who shared

An Interview with the State Bar’sNew President, G. Gray Wilson

G. Gray Wilson is sworn in as president by Supreme Court Justice Mark Martin, with his wife,Cheryl, looking on.


WINTER 20186

the common purpose of protecting the publicfrom unsavory members of the profession. Ialso became acquainted with an all-star cast ofstaff counsel and management personnel whowere utterly devoted to self-regulation of theprofession. Q: How has the work of the State Barchanged since you first became involved?

Frankly, the job has gotten tougher overthe past decade, as the State Bar has with-stood assaults from a number of quarters,such as online legal service providers, creativeunauthorized practice forays in this jurisdic-tion, and occasional friction with theGeneral Assembly. It would be prudent forme to stop here.Q: Can you tell us about the most difficultissue you’ve faced as an officer or member ofthe Bar Council?

I sat on the Grievance Committee for allbut one year of my nine-year term, serving asa subcommittee chair for several of thoseyears. I struggled mightily with finding a bal-ance between the rationale for discipline anda parsing of those violations that were theinnocent product of ignorance versus malev-olent intent.Q: What do think are the biggest issues cur-rently facing the council?

Technology would be at the top of the list,in so many ways, from online providers toLinkedIn and other social media, to referralservices, to cyber security, to lawyer advertis-ing. We cannot regulate the Internet, butsometimes I wish we could. The public wantsaccess to services out there that may notalways be in their best interest, but we mustchange with the times to try to accommodatealternative structures that fit within thepurview of the First Amendment.Q: Some years ago you served as president ofthe North Carolina Bar Association and nowyou are serving as president of the State Bar.It appears that you are the first person toever serve in both capacities. What did youlearn as president of the Bar Association thatmay help you succeed in your current office?How do you see the two organizations relat-ing to one another? Are there ways in whichthe Bar Association and the State Bar canbetter cooperate to assist lawyers and protectthe public?

I am not the first to hold both offices.Louis Poisson, grandfather of former coun-cilor Fred Poisson (a Davidson College class-mate of mine), was one of the founders of theState Bar, served as Bar Association president

in 1946, then as State Bar president in 1951.He was the first member of the ABA Houseof Delegates from this state. What I learned asBar Association president is that its mission isnot really that different from that of the StateBar once you get past the statutory mandateof this state agency. Both organizations striveto make the profession better by helpinglawyers do their job ably, with counselingservices, future planning committees, andeducation and training beyond law school.The synergy is there, but has not always beentapped to its full extent. It is my fervent hopethat this will change, and that the cooperationbetween these two fine organizations willimprove in coming years.Q: You currently chair the Board ofDirectors for Lawyers Mutual. How has thatexperience informed your service on the BarCouncil?

And speaking of synergy, Lawyers Mutualhas been working closely with the State Bar toprovide training at no charge to attorneysacross the state with regard to the relativelynew trust account rules and the perils of cyberfraud. Sitting on the Board of Directors forthe past dozen years, especially the claimscommittee reviewing mistakes lawyers make,has made me a better lawyer. It has also taughtme that lawyers who practice ethically makefewer mistakes.Q: Most lawyers realize that you literally“wrote the book” on civil procedure in ourstate, cementing your reputation as a schol-ar and a teacher. Academically speaking, doyou think the lawyers of North Carolinahave a sufficient understanding of therationale for and the importance of self-regulation?

I consider my treatise on civil procedureto be a great cure for insomnia, but beyondthat, I hope it provides some guidance to thetrial practitioner on how to navigate a lawsuitwithout crashing and burning. As for self-regulation, I fear that much of the bar of thisstate has little appreciation of the benefitsand privileges we enjoy through self-regula-tion. I can assure you that there are othersout there without a law license ready to reg-ulate us with abandon should we fail to per-form our work properly.Q: A couple of years ago you organized avery successful CLE program at the State Barconcerning law and the humanities. Why isit important that lawyers be exposed to andmindful of great literature and philosophy?

I am proud of the Law and Humanities

seminar program created with the invaluableassistance of David Hostetler. Knowledge ispower, and an understanding of the classics inWestern civilization provides a sound founda-tion for communicating with those whocome from all walks of life in a courtroom,especially in a jury setting. There will alwaysbe another opponent out there smarter thanyou, but he or she may not be better educat-ed, and learning has always been the curse ofmy family.Q: Over the past two years, your predeces-sors have put a great deal of emphasis onincreasing the State Bar’s “engagement” withits constituent lawyers and various other“stakeholders.” Why is that important andwhat would you like to see happen in thatregard?

Transparency is key to the ongoing mis-sion and perhaps survival of this self-regulat-ing agency, one that is often misunderstoodby the public. The cure for that malaise iseducation (see the previous question), and themore we can present what we do and how wedo it in the public domain, the greater under-standing there will be about the critical valueof our mission.Q: The State Bar is still embroiled in litiga-tion with Capital Associated Industries inregard to CAI’s desire to use its own housecounsel to represent its members. Why is theState Bar involved? What is the status of thecase presently?

That case was dismissed on summaryjudgment by Judge Loretta Biggs in theMiddle District of North Carolina and hasbeen appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Oralarguments are scheduled in the near future,and we expect to have a decision at or short-ly after year end. Further this deponentsayeth not.Q: Programmatically speaking, what do youhope to accomplish while president of theNorth Carolina State Bar?

I hope to promote better ties with theNorth Carolina Bar Association through ajoint committee set up with the assistance ofits current president, Jackie Grant. Publiceducation down at the local district bar levelremains a priority. We are looking into ameans to provide universal and ready accessto every courthouse in the state for anyattorney who shows up for business. We willalso be monitoring the rollout of the univer-sal bar examination for the first time inFebruary 2019.Q: The State Bar recently appointed for the

Fastest smartest malpractice insurance. Period.

800.906.9654GilsbarPRO.com


first time a member of its staff to act as “leg-islative liaison.” Does this foreshadow theagency’s increased involvement in legislativematters? If so, how can the State Bar and itsmembership be most effective in promotingits agenda?

While strictly respecting our function asa regulatory agency, the State Bar needs tobuild relationships with our legislators, par-ticularly our lawyer legislators. Recently pro-moted Peter Bolac will take the lead, as hehas so ably in the past, at keeping us and theGeneral Assembly informed on issues direct-ly affecting our mission, and this effort atliaison will be pursued at the local districtbar level as well.Q: Tom Lunsford, the State Bar’s executivedirector since 1992, will be retiring at theend of 2018 and will be succeeded by thelong-time assistant director, Alice Mine. Doyou anticipate an easy transition? How willthings be different under the “MineAdministration”?

There could not have been an easier deci-sion than the elevation of the multi-talentedAlice Mine to replace our legendaryExecutive Director Tom Lunsford. In fact,we had to find two other staff members totake her place, as she has worn so many hats

over the years as assistant director. The tran-sition should be seamless, the only caveatbeing that I hope she is prepared to matchthe wit and good humor that Mr. Lunsfordhas displayed with his regular piece in theBar Journal, not to mention the roasting ofthe next outgoing president.Q: If you had not chosen to become alawyer, what do you think you would havedone for a living?

My mother was a cast-iron Calvinist des-perate for me to join the clergy, but since boy-hood my passion has been writing, and thatmeans fiction, not multi-volume legal treatis-es. So I could have been a starving artist, butchose the law in order to earn a living andcontinue writing in a number of contexts.Q: Tell us about your family.

I already mentioned my physician broth-ers, and I have a sister who is also overeducat-ed. My wife Cheryl, a certified yoga instruc-tor, and I have been married over 17 years andhave a blended family of six children, all ofwhom were teenagers when I was BarAssociation president, a daunting challenge.The eldest, Trover, is a social worker/psychol-ogist in Chicago. Lindsey is a mad artist mar-ried to a Dartmouth man who runs an auto-motive software company in Charlotte.

Hailey works for a couple of other attorneysin the Nelson Mullins office I joined a yearago in Winston-Salem. Jared is employedwith Central Coca-Cola Bottling Companyin Charlotte. Harper is in his third year ofmedical school at Wake Forest. And baby girlClaire is pursuing her Ph.D. in psychology atthe University of Indiana in Bloomington. Q: What do you most enjoy doing whenyou’re not representing clients or workingfor the State Bar?

Reading military history (I was a reluctantguest of the US Army right after the tempo-rary truce was declared in Vietnam), running,and flying. I have also been privileged sincemy youth to travel extensively around theplanet, but there are still some far pavilions onmy bucket list that I have yet to visit.Q: How would you like for your presidencyto be remembered when the history of theState Bar is finally written?

That I built relationships with other barorganizations (e.g., NC Bar Association,Lawyers Mutual), increased public aware-ness of the mission of the State Bar, andmaintained a flexible and responsiveapproach to the challenges of technology. Iwould also like to write at least a chapter ofsuch a history book. n

One Last Outlook—AnInterview with Retiring ExecutiveDirector L. Thomas Lunsford II

WINTER 20188

After 27 years as the North Carolina StateBar’s executive director, Tom Lunsford will beretiring at the end of 2018. In a September2017 letter to then State Bar President MarkMerritt, Lunsford advised that his decision toretire resulted from, “my desire to try to be usefulin a different way in my seniority, and my feel-ing that, going forward, the State Bar will bebest served administratively by my stepping asidein favor of someone else with more energy and afresh perspective.”

The State Bar Council voted to promote theagency’s long-time assistant director, Alice NeeceMine, to the executive director position, and shewas sworn in as the Bar’s new secretary/treasurerduring the State Bar’s Annual Meeting onOctober 25.

Q: You grew up in Burlington. What wasthat like?

Burlington was a great town to grow upin, and I am very proud to claim it as myhometown. My childhood was idyllic in acommunity that seemed large and somewhatexciting, but was actually small, safe, and pre-dictable. I had nurturant parents who under-stood the value of education, mostly becausethey had had relatively little, and they sacri-ficed quite willingly to make sure that I andmy two brothers had every chance to makegood use of our talents and opportunities. Q: When and how did you decide tobecome a lawyer?

To be honest, I think law school seemedlike the path of least resistance when I wasnearing the end of my undergraduate experi-ence in Chapel Hill. I had no firm idea whatI wanted to be when I grew up and very lim-ited ambition. I did know that I was mathand science-averse, and figured that if I want-

ed to avoid manual labor, I would be well-advised to trade upon my “way with words.”Since law school seemed like a relatively“wordy” enterprise and I had good grades, Iapplied. It turned out to be a good choice forme. Not only was it language-intensive, but itprepared me for a wonderful career as a legalbureaucrat.Q: Tell us about your years in practice as ayoung lawyer before you joined the StateBar.

I joined a small firm back in Burlingtonright after law school and commenced gener-al practice. Like most new lawyers in that eraand in that kind of environment, I was serial-ly incompetent. On Monday I was unpre-pared for estates and trusts, on Tuesday I was

innocent of the criminal law, on Wednesday,I was negligent in bankruptcy court, etc. Formost of my similarly situated colleagues, thiswas not an insurmountable problem, but Ihated being bad at law and wasn’t very satis-fied with my situation. Things came to crisisin my third year out when interest ratesreached 18% and the firm’s foundational realestate practice went away. The firm’s partners,all of whom were terrific gentlemen, decidedto economize by making me a partner so thatI might share in the risk as well as the expec-tation of entrepreneurship. Before long I waslooking for the door.Q: How and when did you become involvedwith the State Bar?

My involvement with the State Bar pre-

In 1992 L. Thomas Lunsford II was sworn in as secretary/treasurer of the North Carolina State Barby Supreme Court of North Carolina Chief Justice James G. Exum.

dated my licensure. After my second year inlaw school in the summer of 1977, I washired as the agency’s very first ever law clerk.Fortunately for me, the Supreme Courtdecided the case of Bates v. the State Bar ofArizona that summer. That case, whichdeclared that lawyer advertising was com-mercial speech deserving of FirstAmendment protection, was tremendouslyimportant to the profession. Since there wasno one else handy at the State Bar that sum-mer to come to terms with it, I was asked to

analyze the case and explain it and its impli-cations to the State Bar’s Ethics Committee.It was a heady experience, lecturing preemi-nent lawyers like Frank Spruill and CliftonEverett about that landmark decision, partic-ularly since I was so obviously in over myhead. But, amazingly, those incrediblyaccomplished lawyers treated me with sameconsideration and respect that they custom-arily afforded “real” lawyers. It was my firstmeaningful experience with professionalism,and I will never forget it.

After I decided to leave private practice, Icalled the State Bar’s then executive director,Bobby James, for whom I had worked as aclerk. As luck would have it, an opening onthe staff had just developed and he decided totake another chance on me. It was my greatgood fortune. I started on February 1, 1981,as a staff lawyer with a disciplinary caseloadand responsibility for counseling the EthicsCommittee along with Norma Harrell of theAttorney General’s Office. In a fairly shortperiod of time, I transitioned from incompe-tence as a general practitioner to relativeexpertise in the field of professional responsi-bility. I was much happier and soon realized Ihad found my calling.Q: How has the work of the State Barchanged over the years since you firstbecame involved?

I think the biggest change relates to thehigher “profile” we’ve attained in recent years.For most of my tenure, the State Bar was ableto go about its work in relative obscurity. Our

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL 9

Above: Circa 1985, Tom with State Bar Counsel Root Edmonson and State BarCouncilor George Davis.

Above: In 1988, Tom is pictured with his long-serving executive assistant, Joyce Lindsay. Left:As a fan of the Tar Heels, Tom was delighted tohave legendary UNC basketball coach DeanSmith as the speaker at the State Bar’s 1997Annual Meeting.

efforts generally attracted very little publicattention and even our members were rela-tively indifferent to what we were doing.Most people, including all of the media andmany of the lawyers, tended to confuse uswith the North Carolina Bar Association. Inrecent years, though, we have been discoveredand have had to become mindful of public,political, and professional relations to a muchgreater extent than before. Of course, it’s agood thing to be noticed, to be accountable,

and to be appreciated. But sometimes whenthe TV cameras are outside my door, I wist-fully recall anonymity.Q: What were some of the challenges you’vefaced at the State Bar?

Personally, I have been challenged byfeelings of inadequacy and ill-preparation.After all, there were no law school courseson bar management, and I have never beenentirely sure of the difference between debitsand credits. Even so, I seem to have a gift for

amateur theatrics and appear to have suc-cessfully impersonated a credible executivefor nearly three decades. That’s no smallthing. I suspect your question, though, mayhave been intended to query me in regard tochallenges faced by the agency while I havebeen in charge. And there have been some.As a self-regulating regulator, the State BarCouncil is continually challenged to subor-dinate self-interest. I am proud to say, how-ever, that in virtually every instance of whichI have been aware, councilors have recog-nized and sustained the primacy of the pub-lic’s interest. Indeed, I think self-regulationhas been successful in large part because thelawyers serving on the council have beenever-mindful that the primary purpose ofthe State Bar is protection of the public.Although it hasn’t been a big problem lately,councilors who served during the first 25years or so of my tenure on the staff werehard-pressed to make appropriate regulatoryaccommodation of the developing constitu-tional law concerning advertising. In thosedays, the feeling that advertising was unpro-fessional was so pervasive and deeplyingrained that it was difficult to persuademembers of the council that our rules con-cerning advertising and solicitation had tobe made less restrictive. That necessarychange came hard and haltingly, and formost councilors it had nothing to do with

After touring the State Bar’s new headquarters, Tom is pictured with (from left to right) FormerState Bar President M. Keith Kapp, Former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, and the gov-ernor’s legal counsel, Robert C. Stephens.

Below: At the groundbreaking for the new North Carolina StateBar headquarters in 2011. From Left: Raleigh Mayor CharlesE. Meeker, State Bar Vice-President M. Keith Kapp, FormerState Bar President M. Ann Reed, Immediate Past State BarPresident Barbara B. Weyher, Chief Justice Sarah Parker, StateBar President Anthony S. di Santi, State Bar President-ElectJames R. Fox, State Bar Executive Director Tom Lunsford.

Above: Tom and former State Bar presidents participate in thenew State Bar building’s “topping out” ceremony, which is abuilders’ rite traditionally held when the last beam (or its equiv-alent) is placed atop a structure during its construction.

WINTER 201810

preserving economic advantage. Rather, theopposition and intransigence sprang fromthe deep-seated conviction of that genera-tion of attorneys that advertising was ananathema to professionalism and a danger tothe profession. As the Ethics Committee’scounsel for many years, I spent a lot of timetelling people what they didn’t want to hearabout advertising. Q: What was it like working with a long lineof State Bar presidents?

I have been privileged to serve 27 differentpresidents, including persons who becamethe first female and the first African-American presidents of the State Bar. Thoseprofessional and personal relationships havebeen immensely gratifying to me. I havelearned a great deal from each of those menand women and am honored to call them allmy friends. Our Nominating Committee hasdone a wonderful job over the years in select-ing our leaders, and the process wherebysomeone comes to the presidency has provento be very beneficial to the agency. Generallyspeaking, a councilor isn’t seriously consid-ered for service as an officer of the State Baruntil he or she has served three consecutivethree-year terms on the council. By that time,candidates are fully conversant with our regu-latory program, are fully convinced of thenecessity and importance of our role in pro-tecting the public, and are fully aware of thestrengths and weaknesses of people like me.They respect the institution of the State Barand its culture, and they are prepared to leadeffectively and sensibly.Q: When and how did you become the exec-utive director?

I came into office in a time of scandal. InSeptember 1992 my predecessor was foundto have misappropriated funds and resignedvery suddenly. I was the assistant executivedirector at the time and the officers asked meto take charge of the agency as interim execu-tive director. Though somewhat over-whelmed by the responsibility, I felt that I wasreasonably well qualified for the job and soonexpressed my desire to be hired permanently.At the State Bar’s Annual Meeting in Octoberof 1992, the council was persuaded to offerme the position. Q: What do you consider your greatest per-sonal asset as executive director, other thanyour ability to write irreverent essays in theJournal?

I think I have pretty good judgment andperspective, and I think I can generally rec-

ognize what constitutes a “win.” I believe Imay have other useful talents that are moreephemeral and random. For instance, Ithink I have had some inexplicable andunquantifiable role in fostering a culturewithin the staff and the council that isuncommonly humane and productive, andI am very proud of that. I also believe that Ihave generally been successful in assistingthe State Bar’s leadership to focus on what’simportant, to do what makes sense and isright, and to do it by consensus. I am alsoconvinced that my relative ignorance ofmanagement theory and best practices hasserved me and the agency well. Q: How do you feel about handing thereins over to your long-standing assistantdirector and successor Alice Neece Mine?

The only aspect of this transaction thatI’m entirely sure about is the promotion ofAlice Mine. Alice is superbly qualified andtotally deserving of the opportunity. And,perhaps more to the point, the agency, thelawyers, and the public ought to have thebenefit of her inspired leadership. The onlyunfortunate thing about her selection at thispoint in time is that she and I are genera-tionally yoked, being close to the same age.Although I wouldn’t want to compare myselfto Dean Smith, I dothink Alice is in muchthe same position as BillGuthridge when CoachSmith retired. She mayhave time to take us to acouple of Final Fours,but she probably won’thave enough time at thehelm to accomplish allthat she might. In anyevent, though, Alice isgreat and choosing herwas really a “no-brainer”for the State Bar. In avery real sense, she’s mylegacy, and I couldn’t beprouder. Q: If you hadn’t chosento become a lawyer,what would you thinkyou would have donefor a living?

I think I would havetried to be writer. Q: Tell us about yourfamily.

I am married to the

former Julie Ogden, also of Burlington. Wewere married a week before law school beganduring the Ford administration. An incom-parable woman in every sense of the word,she is currently a member of the clinical fac-ulty at UNC’s medical school where she prac-tices as a board certified geriatric psychiatrist.I have two sons: Thomas is a retired schoolteacher who is now a first-year resident in in-ternal medicine at UNC. His wife Mignon isa member of the Bar and they are proud par-ents of my remarkable grandson, Gray. Myyounger son Joe is a CPA working with theMeritage Corporation in Austin, Texas. He’sgetting married in January to a classmate fromDavidson, Louisa Williams, who consults withDeloitte. And my dad is still the best man inBurlington at age 93. Q: How would you like to be rememberedwhen the history of the State Bar is written?

Although I can’t really claim muchresponsibility for this, it is very pleasing tome that virtually all of the men and womenwho have served as councilors during mytenure have testified publicly that their serv-ice on the council was the finest thing thatthey had ever done professionally. I hope tobe long associated with those sentiments, atleast in their minds. n

Tom Lunsford with the State Bar’s new executive director and secre-tary/treasurer, Alice Neece Mine, at the State Bar’s Annual Meetingin October 2018.


INTRODUCTION

Western FeatsNorth Carolina is indebted to its western

peoples, according to Governor William A.Graham, for having declared independencefrom Great Britain in 1775.1 Our state flagand our state seal have acknowledged thisaccomplishment for more than a century.2

And North Carolina owes its western peoplesgratitude, too, for having secured fairer leg-islative apportionment in the early 19th cen-tury. Our constitution has evidenced thisachievement since the amendments of1835.3 Not only have the birth and develop-ment of the state been influenced by thewestern peoples of North Carolina, but soalso has the history of our state’s modernSupreme Court. The Court’s antebellumequity jurisdiction and its summer session inBurke County demonstrate this influence.

The overarching ideal which inspiredeach of these feats of North Carolina’s west-ern peoples is faith in a democratic elementin republican government: representationshould ground government; populationshould determine representation; membersand officers of government should stay inclose touch with the people who found andtolerate it.4 This short note commemoratesthe influence of the ideal of democracy onthe establishment and development of theSupreme Court of North Carolina during itsantebellum period as we celebrate the Court’s200th anniversary.

Colonial RootsUnder the state constitution of 1776, the

“supreme court of law and equity” was thehighest court in North Carolina.5 Early state

statutes recognized this court by its colonialname of “superior courts,” the general assem-bly continuing this usage from a colonial actdespite the term being omitted from the con-stitution.6 A superior court of law sat as acourt of general jurisdiction which triedcauses and which heard appeals from inferiorcourts.7 Equity jurisdiction was tacked on afew years later.8 There were six superiorcourts of law and equity, one for each judicialdistrict established by the general assembly.The state’s three superior court judges com-prised the court in each of these judicial dis-tricts. The judges were Samuel Ashe of NewHanover County, Samuel Spencer of AnsonCounty, and James Iredell of ChowanCounty.9 In the absence of one of thesejudges, the other two judges could hear argu-

ment on “demurrers, cases agreed, specialverdicts, bills of exception to evidence, andmotions in arrest of judgment.”10 In theabsence of two of the judges, the remainingjudge could hold court, give judgment, andaward execution in all other situations.11

The administration of justice by the supe-rior courts faltered after an act of 1790 addeda fourth superior court judge, increased thenumber of judicial districts from six to eight,and grouped the eight judicial districts of thestate into eastern and western ridings, twojudges to each riding, one judge from eachriding rotating to the other riding at the com-pletion of a circuit.12 With two judges hear-ing important questions of law, split deci-sions occurred.13 And with different judgesdeciding cases on the different ridings, uni-

Summer Session: The MorgantonDecisions, 1847-1861

B Y T H O M A S P . D A V I S

Burke County Courthouse, ca. 1912. This photograph was created by L. E. Webb and submitted by R.Douglas Walker,Jr. to Picture Burke, a digital photograph preservation project of the Burke County PublicLibrary.

WINTER 201812

formity of decision was lost.14 In response tothese problems, the general assembly experi-mented with a semiannual conference of thefour superior court judges.15 The conferencesoon became a permanent court of record, atfirst called the “Court of Conference” andlater called the “Supreme Court.”16

Such is the history of our early SupremeCourt.17 Its inspiration, though, was alteredby statute 13 years after the renaming of theCourt of Conference.18 This statutory inno-vation created what one may properly call themodern Supreme Court, the newly-designedcourt having had important features in com-mon with today’s Supreme Court.

Statutory InnovationThe emergence of the modern Supreme

Court of North Carolina began with failureand ended with compromise. Some membersof the general assembly thought that a peri-odic conference of trial judges did not ade-quately address the difficulties first caused bythe populist attack on the court system in1790. During the 1817 session of the generalassembly, Senator Bartlett Yancey of CaswellCounty reported from committee a bill con-cerning the Supreme Court which aimed toremedy these problems, but the bill did notpass.19 Nonetheless, with Governor Branchthrowing in his support at the next session ofthe general assembly, Senator WilliamGaston guided a similar bill into law whichestablished the modern Supreme Court ofNorth Carolina.20 This bill and a supplemen-tal bill passed into law in December 1818,while the election of the court’s clerk and thesitting of the court at its first session occurredthe following month in Raleigh.21

The jurisdiction of this modern SupremeCourt was innovative in two respects. First,the members of the Supreme Court wouldnot try cases at law, which was “a wide depar-ture from the old English system, and fromthat of our general government….”22 As apurely appellate court of law with no dutieson circuit, its members would stand at a dis-tance from the people—at an uncomfortabledistance in the opinion of the swelling ranksof pro-democracy reformers,23 includingreformers agitating in the under-representedwestern part of the state.24 Second, theCourt would enjoy removal jurisdiction overpending equity cases. While this removaljurisdiction compromised the vision of apurely appellate court, it did not require themembers of the Court to ride circuit, and it

helped the large western counties that suf-fered from severe delays in the hearing ofequity suits.25

By the success of this compromise con-cerning jurisdiction, William Gaston, senatorfor the eastern county of Craven, became thefounder of the modern Supreme Court andbegan a friendship with the representatives ofthe state’s western counties.

Democratic-Republican DiscontentEven with this compromise accepted and

the modern Supreme Court established, dis-trust of the fledgling institution festeredthroughout the 1820s and into the 1830s.Session after legislative session, democracy-minded reformers in the general assemblyattacked the Court and the salary of its mem-bers.26 After all, for most litigants the Courtsat remotely, never venturing from its quar-ters in the North Carolina State House onUnion Square in Raleigh, and it viewed casesat law through the sterile lens of theirrecords. Furthermore, the Court cabined itsjudgment by precedents developed in accor-dance with an academic, systematized, 18th-century view of our inherited common law.No Benthamite-reformers were Chief JusticeJohn Louis Taylor, Judge John Hall, andJudge Leonard Henderson.27 That the Courtengaged in particularized justice in suits inequity28 did not remedy its distance from thepeople or its reactionary bent. And when thewidely-admired Chief Justice Hendersondied in 1833, common law-adherent thoughhe was, the Court’s very survival was put inquestion.29

Doubt was quickly laid to rest by theelection of William Gaston to a seat on theCourt, and by the selection of ThomasRuffin as the Court’s third chief justice.30

The Court’s reading of the separation ofpowers and the law of the land provisions ofthe North Carolina constitution in Hoke v.Henderson also added to the security of theCourt,31 as did amendments by the stateconstitutional convention of 1835, whichincreased the independence of thejudiciary.32 Over the next ten years, ChiefJustice Thomas Ruffin, Judge WilliamGaston, and Judge Joseph Daniel served asmembers of a Court that the general assem-bly let sit in relative peace.

Death of GastonThe Court’s roots in legislative compro-

mise were exposed again at the death of Judge

Gaston on 23 January 1844. The statemourned the loss of Gaston. A resolution wasprinted in both the senate and house journalsremembering Gaston’s contributions to thebetterment of his state:

Resolved, by the General Assembly of theState of North Carolina, That in the deathof William Gaston, one of the Judges ofthe Supreme Court, the State has experi-enced a loss of one of its most patrioticcitizens, a faithful public servant, and alearned and impartial judge. That in thecourse of a long and brilliant life, hisbright career is left to us an example wor-thy of all imitation, and his unsulliedcharacter one of the brightest jewels of theState....33

Senator Bogle of Iredell County presented abill to carve out a new western county to benamed “Gaston.”34 This honor wasbestowed upon the easterner Gaston not sim-ply because of his work on the bill concern-ing the Supreme Court in 1818, but alsobecause “he had the pluck to advocate a con-vention for doing justice to the west.”35

Another bill from that session—one present-ed by Senator Nicholas W. Woodfin of the49th District of Buncombe, Yancey, andHenderson Counties—also links to themourning of Gaston’s death by the west.That bill provided for an annual summer ses-sion of the Supreme Court in the westernpart of the state.36 With their friend on theCourt now dead, apparently the fear of a too-distant, too-aristocratic Court surged againamong the representatives of the westerncounties.37 A legislative remedy was fash-ioned: the Supreme Court would ride a cir-cuit of its own, one running between westand east.

SUMMER SESSION FOR WESTERNCOUNTIES

MorgantonUnder the new law, the Supreme Court

would hold a summer session of court inMorganton, Burke County, on the firstMonday of each August beginning in 1847for “all appeals taken, and causes transmit-ted…from the superior courts of law or thecourts of equity of the counties of Stokes,Davidson, Union, Stanly, and of the coun-ties lying west of the same....”38 Thesmooth operation of this session of courtwould depend primarily upon the judgesand attorneys in attendance, but also upon


the officials acting as marshal, clerk ofcourt, reporter, and librarian for the sum-mer session.

JudgesOnly six members of the Supreme Court

of North Carolina ever rode to summer ses-sion at Morganton. At the first summer ses-sion, Thomas Ruffin was chief justice andthe judges were Frederick Nash (who hadbeen elected upon Judge Gaston’s death) andJoseph Daniel. Judge Daniel died before thenext summer session. To replace him, thegovernor appointed William Battle, whoserved until the general assembly met thatfall, when it elected Richmond Pearson tothe Court. Four years later, Chief JusticeRuffin resigned. William Battle then becamea member of the Court by election of thegeneral assembly and Judge Nash was select-ed as chief justice. When Chief Justice Nashdied six years later, the general assembly re-elected Thomas Ruffin to the SupremeCourt and Judge Pearson was selected aschief justice. The next year, Judge Ruffinresigned and the general assembly electedMatthias Manly to the Court.39

AttorneysThe attorneys reported to have argued in

Morganton were numerous, and many ofthem appeared frequently. The Court’s offi-cial reporters referred to counsel by last nameonly or by last name and initials. Appearingoften were counsel by the names of“Alexander,” “W. W. Avery,” “Baxter,”“Boyden,” “Bynum,” “Edney,” “Francis,”“Gaither,” “Guion,” “H. C. Jones,” “Lander,”“Osborne,” “Shipp,” “Thompson,”“Wilson,” “J. W. Woodfin,” and “N. W.Woodfin.” At least 70 different attorneysargued in Morganton.

It seems that many accomplished lawyerspopulate the list of attorneys appearing atsessions of the Supreme Court held atMorganton. For example, “W. W. Avery”may refer to William Waightstill Avery, whoserved in the state house of commons;40 “N.W. Woodfin” may refer to NicholasWashington Woodfin, who served in thestate senate;41 and “H. C. Jones” may referto Hamilton C. Jones, who served for adecade as the official reporter for theSupreme Court.42

Attorney General or CounsellorThe attorney general, or in his absence an

appointed counsellor, handled the state’sbusiness at the summer session of theSupreme Court.43 Seven men served asattorney general during the years that sum-mer sessions were held at Morganton:Edward Stanley (1846-1848), BartholomewF. Moore (1848-1851), William Eaton Jr.(1851-1852), Matthew W. Ransom (1853-1855), Joseph B. Batchelor (1855-1856),William H. Bailey (1857), and William A.Jenkins (1857-1862).44 The reported opin-ions for the summer session indicate “attor-ney general” for the state in the vast major-ity of cases, but on rare occasion an opinionindicates representation by appointed coun-sellor.45

MarshalThe sheriff of Burke County acted as

marshal for the summer session of theSupreme Court.46 Five men served as sheriffduring the years that summer session washeld at Morganton: Alexander Duckworth(1846-1848), Milton Wellborn Kincaid(1848-1850), Alexander Duckworth (1850-1854), Joseph Brittain (1854-1860), andBartlett A. Berry (1860-1865).47

Clerk of CourtPrior to the first summer session, the

Court exercised its statutory power toappoint a clerk at Morganton, instead ofimposing additional duties on the clerk ofthe Supreme Court in Raleigh. The Courtappointed James Richard Dodge to the posi-tion.48 Mr. Dodge would serve as clerk ofcourt for each of the 15 years in which sum-mer session was held.

ReporterThe Supreme Court did not exercise its

statutory power to appoint a separatereporter for the summer session.49 Instead,the Court’s official reporter handled theheadnoting, indexing, and publishing of theopinions at Raleigh and at Morganton.None of the four men who reported casesfrom summer session distinguishedMorganton opinions from Raleigh opinionsin tables of cases, tables of cases cited, or sub-ject indexes of reporter volumes, though“August Term” was indicated in the runningheader of the pages of the reports whereappropriate. Besides opinions, two ruleswere issued from Morganton, one concern-ing the county court at which executionwould be returnable for judgments had at

Morganton,50 and the other addressing friv-olous motions for rehearings.51 Four menserved as reporter during the years the courtheld summer session: James Iredell Jr.(1840-1852), Perrin Busbee (1852-1853),Quentin Busbee (1853), and Hamilton C.Jones (1853-1863).

LibrarianThe creation of a Supreme Court Library

at Morganton dates to 1851.52 The clerk ofcourt acted as librarian, acquiring whatresources could be spared from the collec-tion of law books at Raleigh53 and usingtaxes on attorney’s licenses to fund the pur-chase of new law books for Morganton.54

Books, Books, BooksIt would be conjectured in an address

from 1889 by the Honorable Kemp P.Battle, president of the University of NorthCarolina, that a weak law library atMorganton resulted in weak opinions atsummer session:

In 1846 the lawyers of the western por-tion of the State induced the GeneralAssembly to order a term of the Court tobe held in Morganton....The experimentwas not satisfactory to the Court or tothe profession. Owing to a want of a lawlibrary, ‘Morganton decisions,’ as theywere called, were regarded as less certain-ly sound than those at Raleigh. TheConstitution of 1868 fixed the sessions ofthe Court ‘at the seat of government;’that of 1876 leaves the sessions at ‘the cityof Raleigh, until otherwise ordered by theGeneral Assembly.’55

Since no record exists today of the hold-ings of the Supreme Court Library atMorganton, one can only speculate aboutthe nature of this reported weakness in thecollection. It seems unlikely that the lawlibrary lacked the widely-read legal treatisesrequired by the Supreme Court of applicantsfor law license, such as the classic works ofSir Edward Coke and Sir WilliamBlackstone or the contemporary works ofJohn Adams on equity and James Iredell onexecutors.56 And the clerk of court probablyhad no difficulty acquiring recently com-piled digests of North Carolina cases57 orrecently compiled codifications of NorthCarolina laws58 for the law library. The mostlikely gaps in the collection of law books atMorganton were the statutes of Parliament,the reports of judicial opinion in England,59

WINTER 201814

early state session laws, and early statereports.60

Not only did the judges suffer a scarcityof resources at Morganton, they may haveendured time pressure in the preparation ofopinions. Some evidence suggests that thejudges filed their Morganton opinions whileon circuit.61 And they filed manyMorganton opinions. During the 15 sum-mer sessions, more than 700 opinions werefiled, consuming 2,000 pages within 27 vol-umes of reports.62

Still, Morganton decisions contributed tothe development of our common law andour equity doctrine in the same manner asRaleigh decisions—by a confluence of prac-tical reasoning by bench and bar in particu-lar cases. The attorneys argued fundamentalissues on circuit, sometimes resulting inopinions that display elegant legal reasoning.For instance, in Love v. Schenck, concerningthe creation of Gaston County, the chief jus-tice described as inherent the power of thegeneral assembly to divide one county intotwo counties, identified incidental and nec-essary powers to this inherent power, such asthe “power to make also a fair and reasonabledivision between them of any fund before

raised by levies on the inhabitants of boththe counties in common,” and declined toreview the exercise of these powers, firstexplaining that the statute complained ofdepended-upon “sound discretion by a justlawgiver,” and then noting that “if there bean abuse of power in its exercise, it is likemost other cases of such abuse, beyond thejudicial perception or redress....”63

One ought not gainsay the near contem-poraneous opinion that Morganton deci-sions were “less certainly sound” thanRaleigh decisions. Yet, as the quality ofSchenck indicates, bench and bar at summersession could reach great heights, even whensuffering from diminished resources andrestrictions on time, and perhaps they oftendid so.

Discontinuance of Summer SessionA few months after North Carolina

seceded from the union, an act of the generalassembly discontinued the summer sessionat Morganton.64 Mr. Dodge shipped backto Raleigh the records, books, and paperspertaining to the court in Morganton.65 Healso shipped the library back to Raleigh, firstselling off duplicates at public auction.66

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONTyranny is always despised. At the state

constitutional convention of 1835, delegatescondemned unequal representation as aback-sliding of the republic into an excess ofaristocracy, the established eastern countiesof North Carolina in effect having governedthe burgeoning population of the westernpart of the state. Under these circumstances,democracy had emerged as an ideal duringthe early decades of the 19th century, and itwas during this era of democratic reform inNorth Carolina that the general assemblyhad established the modern Supreme Courtof North Carolina. Unfortunately, legislativecompromise at its founding still left theCourt’s democratic credentials in question.While the election of William Gaston to theCourt in the 1830s helped stabilize its exis-tence, his death in 1844 unsettled the repre-sentatives of the state’s western counties onceagain. They demanded a summer session inthe western part of the state for the SupremeCourt. That tribute to equality for the westtook effect in 1847 and endured for 15 years,but then it, too, died, perhaps of irrelevance.In 1861, delegates met in convention once

DOUGLAS J. MEISDriver/Mediator

Phone: (336) 725[email protected]

Helping your clientscross the finish line


CHECKERED FLAG MEDIATIONS

more to consider the current of equality, butno longer did the demand for reform runfrom west to east. n

Thomas P. Davis is librarian of the NorthCarolina Supreme Court Library. The authorthanks James Barrett Fish, assistant librarianfor public services, North Carolina SupremeCourt Library, for his aid in compiling thenames of the attorneys who argued atMorganton, and Fred A. Wood, director ofinformation technology, North CarolinaAppellate Courts, for his assistance in determin-ing the number of pages of Morganton opin-ions. The author thanks Ellen Marie Davis,Grant E. Buckner, Jason R. Jones, Joseph L.Hyde, and John V. Orth for having served asreaders of this essay.

Endnotes1. The Address of the Hon. Wm. A. Graham on the

Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of the 20th ofMay, 1775 (New York, E. J. Hale & Son 1875); id. at 8(quoting from a letter to the organizers of the anniversarycelebration of the Mecklenburg Declaration ofIndependence in 1835 by Judge William Gaston, whohad written, “‘American liberty—here first declared andhere most sacredly cherished ….’”). But see, e.g., WilliamHenry Hoyt, The Mecklenburg Declaration ofIndependence (New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons 1907)(expressing skepticism about the existence of theMecklenburg Declaration of Independence).

2. North Carolina Manual 2007-2008 at 29 (Elaine F.Marshall, Secretary of State, [Raleigh], [2008]) (notingthat since 1861, the year in which North Carolinabecame the last southern state to secede from the Union,our state flag has displayed the date of the MecklenburgDeclaration of Independence (“May 20, 1775”)); id. at24, 27-28 (noting that since 1893, our state seal has dis-played the date of the Mecklenburg Declaration ofIndependence).

3. Henry Groves Connor, The Convention of 1835(Raleigh, Edwards & Broughton Printing Company1908).

4. Id. at 15-16 (reporting Judge Gaston as having said thatthe convention compromise of 50 senators, distributedupon the basis of taxable property, and 120 members inthe House of Commons, distributed upon the basis ofFederal population, each county having at least onemember, bases apportionment upon a correct principle).

5. N.C. Const. of 1776, § 13 (referencing “supreme courtsof law and equity”).

6. Honorable Kemp P. Battle, An Address on the History ofthe Supreme Court: Delivered in the Hall of the House ofRepresentatives, 4 February 1889, 103 N.C. 339, 353(3rd prtg., 1929).

7. An Act for Establishing Court of Law, and for RegulatingProceedings therein, ch. 2, New Bern, 15 November1777, 2nd session in 24 The State Records of NorthCarolina, Laws 1777-1788, at 48, 61 (Walter Clark, ed.,Wilmington, Broadfoot Pub. Co., 1994) (1905) [here-inafter 1777 Courts Act].

8. Potter’s Revisal, ch. 177 (1782).

9. James Iredell resigned in 1778 and was replaced by John

Williams of Granville County. In 1790, a statute addeda fourth superior court judgeship, to which SpruceMacay of Rowan County was elected by the generalassembly. Judge Spencer died in 1794 and was replacedby John Haywood of Halifax County.

10. 1777 Courts Act, supra note 7, sec. 1, at 49.

11. 1777 Courts Act, supra note 7, sec. 1, at 48.

12. An Act to Amend An Act, Entitled, “An Act forEstablishing Courts of Law and Regulating theProceeding Therein,“ and Another Act, Entitled, “AnAct for Giving an Equity Jurisdiction to the SuperiorCourts,” ch. 3, Fayetteville, 01 November 1790, 1st ses-sion in 25 The State Records of North Carolina, Laws1777-1788, at 65 (Walter Clark, ed., Wilmington,Broadfoot Pub. Co., 1994) (1906).

13. See, e.g., State v. Long, 2 N.C. (1 Hayw.) 154 (1795)(after trial of a felony and special verdict given by the jury,Judges Macay and Haywood were left split on the ques-tion on which the jury “pray[ed] the advice of the court”:whether felony larceny is committed by one who, withfraudulent intent, obtains the owner’s consent to the tak-ing of property; the judges sought the opinions of theother superior court judges of the state, but Judges Asheand Williams, too, were divided; “and the prisoner wasrecommended to mercy, and obtained his pardon.”).

14. Battle, supra note 6, at 357-58 (bemoaning the frequen-cy of “diverse decisions by different supreme tribunals ofthe same question....”).

15. An Act directing the judges of the superior courts tomeet together to settle questions of law or equity arisingon the circuit, and to provide for the trial of all personsconcerned in certain frauds, ch. 4, Raleigh, 18November 1799, 1st session in 2 The Public Acts of theGeneral Assembly of North-Carolina 133 (Francois-XavierMartin, compiler, New Bern, Martin & Ogden 1804).

16. An Act to continue in force an act passed in the year onethousand eight hundred and one, entitled “An act tocontinue longer in force and to amend an act passed inthe year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine,entitled An act directing the judges of the superior courtsto meet together to settle questions of law or equity aris-ing on the circuit, and to provide for the trial of personsconcerned in certain frauds.,” ch. 18, Raleigh, 19November 1804 in Laws of N.C. [of 1804,] at 9; An Actrelative to the Court of Conference, ch. 1, Raleigh, 18November 1805 in Laws of N.C. [of 1805,] at 1.

17. For a cursory discussion of three subsequent statutesconcerning the early Supreme Court, see Battle, supranote 6, at 358-59.

18. Potter’s Revisal, chs. 962 & 963 (1818).

19. Guion Griffis Johnson, Ante-bellum North Carolina626 (Chapel Hill, UNC Press 1937); Gaston’s ReportRelating to the Judiciary, Monday, December 6, 1819,Journal of the Senate in Journals of the Senate and House ofCommons of the General Assembly of North-Carolina at itsSession in 1819, at 113, 114 (Raleigh 1820) (musing onthe failure of the 1817 bill concerning the supreme courtand speculating that perhaps our representatives pre-ferred to endure a current problem than to risk its reme-dy).

20. Johnson, supra note 19, at 626.

21. Chief Justice Walter Clark, History of the Supreme Courtof North Carolina, 177 N.C. 615, 620 (1919) (notingthat the first session of the modern Supreme Court washeld on 5 January 1819).

22. Battle, supra note 6, at 360.

23. Walter F. Pratt Jr., The Struggle for Judicial Independence

in Antebellum North Carolina: The Story of Two Judges, 4Law & History Review 129, 130 (1986).

24. Pratt, supra note 23, at 135-39.

25. Pratt, supra note 23, at 139.

26. Pratt, supra note 23, at 129-32, 135.

27. Honorable Robert W. Winston, A Century of Law inNorth Carolina in 176 N.C. 763, 770 (1919) (describingthe first members of the modern Supreme Court ofNorth Carolina as “of the Iredell school of thought”).

28. See, e.g., Grantham v. Bizzel, 10 N.C. (3 Hawks) 196(1824) (reporting “cause … heard on Bill, answer anddepositions,” the court’s opinion by Judge Hall denyingrelief from obvious errors in a deed where the deed wasobtained under oppressive circumstances). Thus, notonly do the reports of the state’s early Supreme Courtinclude more than decisions on appeals, see supra note13, but also the antebellum reports of the state’s modernSupreme Court include more than decisions on appeals,as in Grantham.

29. Pratt, supra note 23, at 144-47 (describing the fate of abill to abolish the Supreme Court and to restore thecourt of conference).

30. Pratt, supra note 23, at 129.

31. Pratt, supra note 23, at 148 (arguing that the constitu-tional protection declared in Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C.1 (1834), of the property interest of Mr. LawsonHenderson in the statutory office of clerk of superiorcourt for Lincoln County extended by analogy to thestatutory office of judge of the supreme court).

32. Pratt, supra note 23, at 131 (noting three amendmentsconcerning salary and removal from office).

33. See, e.g., Resolution in relation to the death of the lateWm. Gaston, Tuesday, Dec. 31, 1844, Senate Journal1844-’45 in Journals of the Senate and House of Commonsof the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, atits Session in 1844-’45, at 232 (Raleigh, Weston B. Gales1845) [hereinafter Senate Journal 1844-’45].

34. A Bill to lay off and establish a County by the name ofGaston, Thursday, November 28, 1844, id. at 55. Thisbill was rejected on Wednesday, January 8, 1845, id. at327, but Gaston County was established during the fol-lowing legislative session. An Act to establish a new coun-ty by the name of Gaston, and to annex a part of thecounty of Catawba to the county of Lincoln, ch. 24,1846-’47 Laws of N.C. 73; An Act supplemental to anact, passed by the present General Assembly, entitled, “anact to lay off and establish a new county by the name ofGaston, and to annex a part of Catawba county to thecounty of Lincoln,” ch. 25, 1846-’47 Laws of N.C. 73.

35. Battle, supra note 6, at 371.

36. Friday, December 20, 1844, Senate Journal 1844-’45,supra note 33, at 173. This bill was laid on the table onTuesday, January 7, 1845, id. at 309, but the western rid-ing was established during the following legislative ses-sion. An Act to Provide for Holding a Session of theSupreme Court, Once a Year, in the Western Part of theState, ch. 28, 1846-’47 Laws of NC 86 [hereinafter Actfor Summer Session]; An Act Supplemental to an Act,Passed at the Present Session of the General Assembly,Entitled An “An Act to Provide for Holding a Session ofthe Supreme Court, Once a Year, in the Western Part ofthe State,” ch. 29, 1846-’47 Laws of N.C. 89 [hereinafterSupplemental Act for Summer Session]. RepresentativeMichael Hoke of Lincoln County had toyed with a sim-ilar idea even prior to Judge Gaston’s death. Resolutionfor the Committee on the Judiciary to Inquire into theExpediency of Establishing a Branch of the SupremeCourt in the Western part of this State, Tuesday, Nov. 27,

WINTER 201816

1838, Journal of the Senate in Journals of the Senate andHouse of Commons of the General Assembly of the State ofNorth Carolina, at its Session in 1838-39, at 319 (Raleigh,Thos. J. Lemay 1839).

37. Contrary to the thesis of this essay, the HonorableKemp P. Battle, president of the University of NorthCarolina, attributes the legislation requiring a summersession of the Supreme Court to the lawyers of the west-ern part of the state. See infra text accompanying note 55.

38. Act for Summer Session, supra note 36, sec. 2, at 87(including also two provisos, one concerning appeals incertain criminal cases, the other concerning the right toreturn appeals from named counties to Raleigh); see alsoSupplemental Act for Summer Session, supra note 36,sec. 1, at 89 (providing for removal to Morganton of cer-tain appeals undecided at Raleigh).

39. The judges of the supreme court who served in sessionat Morganton were:

Matthias Manly was the last-elected antebellum judge ofthe Supreme Court of North Carolina and, like JudgeGaston, was a Roman Catholic. See Clark, supra note 21,at 624-25; Manly, Matthias in 4 Dictionary of NorthCarolina Biography 211 (William S. Powell, ed., 1991).

40. “W. W. Avery” argued at Morganton in 1853; “Avery”argued both law and equity cases at Morganton from1847-1860. William Waightstill Avery studied lawunder William Gaston, practiced law in Morganton, andrepresented Burke County three times in the state houseof commons during the 1840s and 1850s. Avery,William Waightstill in 1 Dictionary of North CarolinaBiography 71-72 (William S. Powell, ed., 1979).

41. “N. W. Woodfin” argued at every Morganton session,handling both law and equity cases in all years except1861. Nicholas Washington Woodfin served from 1844-1852 as state senator from the “Buncombe andHenderson District” and introduced the bill whichestablished the summer session of the supreme court.Woodfin, Nicholas Washington in 6 Dictionary of NorthCarolina Biography 263-64 (William S. Powell, ed.,1996).

42. “H. C. Jones” chiefly argued cases at law at Morgantonfrom 1848-1856; “Jones” argued at Morganton from1857-1859. Hamilton Chamberlain Jones representedRowan County in the House of Commons in 1827,1829, 1838, and 1840, as well as finished the term ofanother in 1849; from 1842-1848 he served as solicitorfor the Sixth North Carolina Judicial District; he alsoserved as reporter for the Supreme Court from 1853-1863. Jones, Hamilton Chamberlain in 3 Dictionary ofNorth Carolina Biography 318-19 (William S. Powell,ed., 1988).

43. Supplemental Act for Summer Session, supra note 36,sec. 4, at 90.

44. North Carolina Government, 1585-1974: A Narrativeand Statistical History 182 (John L. Cheney Jr., ed.,Raleigh, N.C. Sec’y of State 1975).

45. For example, “T. R. Caldwell” appeared in Attorney-General v. Carver, 34 N.C. (12 Ired.) 231 (1851);“Baxter” appeared in State v. Shelton, 47 N.C. (2 Jones)360 (1855) and in State v. Gentry, 47 N.C. (2 Jones) 406(1855); and “Avery” appeared in State v. Tom, 47 N.C. (2

Jones) 414 (1855).

46. Act for Summer Session, supra note 36, sec. 4, at 88.

47. Burke County Sheriffs–1777 to Present, Burke CountySheriff ’s Office, (burkesheriff.org/pastsheriffs.htm)(accessed 12 July 2018).

48. Act for Summer Session, supra note 36, sec. 3, at 87-88;Supplemental Act for Summer Session, supra note 36,sec. 3, at 90; see also Marshall DeLancey Haywood, TheOfficers of the Court, 1819-1919, 176 N.C. 811-13(describing James Richard Dodge as a native New Yorkerfirst barred in Virginia before moving to North Carolinato practice law, and as a great friend of a number ofnotable attorneys who practiced law in Raleigh).

49. Act for Summer Session, supra note 36, sec. 5 at 88.

50. 32 N.C. 277 (1849); 41 N.C. 290 (1849).

51. 57 N.C. 154 (1858).

52. An Act to provide Law Books for the Supreme Courtat Morganton, ch. 93, sec. 1, 1850-‘51 Laws of N.C.164 (ratified 28 January 1851).

53. Regarding the history of the library at Raleigh, seeRaymond M. Taylor, History of the North CarolinaSupreme Court Library, 275 N.C. 713 (July 1, 1969).

54. Id.

55. Battle, supra note 6, at 363. President Battle’s remarksmight suggest that either no law library or no worthwhilelaw library existed at Morganton. I take him to havemeant the latter, since the general assembly funded itsmandate to the clerk of court, see supra note 52, and sinceHice v. Cox may evidence an inadequate collection of lawbooks at Morganton, 34 N.C. 315, 321 (1851) (Augustterm) (“For this, is cited Wright v Beckett, 1 Moo. andRob., 414 [174 English Reports 143 (1833)], which is notin our library.”) (Pearson, J., dissenting).

56. General Order at December Term 1849, 32 N.C. (10Ired.) 607 (setting out the first reading list of the judgesof the Supreme Court of North Carolina for applicantsfor law license); General Order at December Term 1850,33 N.C. (11 Ired.) 658 (requiring the reading of “Adams’Equity”); Rule by the Court at December Term 1854, 47N.C. (2 Jones) 132 (requiring the reading of “Iredell onExecutors”).

57. Antebellum digests of opinions of the Supreme Courtof North Carolina were produced by official reportersFrancis Hawks (1826), James Iredell, Jr. (1839), andHamilton C. Jones (1854) (dedicated by Jones to thememory of “The Honorable William Gaston”).

58. Early codifications of North Carolina session laws wereThe Revised Statutes of The State of North Carolina (1837)and the Revised Code of North Carolina (1855).

59. Cf. Hice v. Cox, 34 N.C. 315, 321 (1851) (Augustterm) (perhaps evidencing a gap in the collection of lawbooks at Morganton when dissenting Judge Pearsonnotes the absence of a report of Wright v Beckett, 1 Moo.and Rob., 414 [174 English Reports 143 (1833)] fromthe court’s library).

60. For example, at about the time that Senator Woodfincalled for a session of the Supreme Court in the west,William Battle addressed the problem of scarcity of theearly state reports for a second time. In 1832 he hadreprinted volume 1 of Haywood’s Reports from 1799.Now in 1843 to 1844, Battle compressed seven originalvolumes of North Carolina nominal reports into threereprint volumes: the first of these three reprint volumescontained Martin’s Reports (1797) and volume two ofHaywood’s Reports (1806); the second containedTaylor’s Reports (1802) and the Conference Reports(1805); and the third contained the two volumes of the

Carolina Law Repository (1814, 1816) and the NorthCarolina Term Reports (1818). Later, in 1857 and 1860,Battle would reprint 1st Devereux & Battle (1837) and2nd Devereux & Battle (1838). 1 William H. Battle, ADigest of All the Reported Cases Both in Law and Equity,Determined in the Courts of North Carolina at vi (Raleigh,Nichols, Gorman & Neathery 1866).

61. For instance, a spot-check of entries in the SupremeCourt Equity Docket, August, 1847-August, 1861 (BookNo. 158), Volume No. 325, Records, Dockets, andMiscellaneous Volumes, 1800-1929, which is available forinspection at the N.C. Office of Archives and History inRaleigh, shows that: (1) case “#53” was an appeal of anorder of Spring Term, 1858, from “Gaston County,”which was “filed” (docketed?) at Morganton on “27 July1858” and which was reported among the decisions forAugust Term 1858 as High Schoals Mining Co. v. Grier,57 N.C. (4 Jones Eq.) 132 (1858) (Pearson, J.); and (2)case “#57” was a cause removed to Morganton from theCourt of Equity of Lincoln County which was “filed”(docketed?) on “8 August 1858” and which was reportedamong the decisions for August Term 1858 as Boyd v.King, 57 N.C. (4 Jones Eq.) 152 (1858) (Battle, J.).

62. The number of pages of Morganton opinions is herecalculated by counting pages in the volumes of the NorthCarolina Reports sold today by the North CarolinaAdministrative Office of the Courts. Of the reports inwhich opinions from a summer session at Morgantonappear, all 27 volumes sold today are reprints, and onlyeight of those 27 volumes are facsimile reprints of theoriginals.

* facsimile reprint

63. 34 N.C. (12 Ired.) 304, 307-09 (1851) (Ruffin, C.J.).

64. An Act to Change the Jurisdiction of the Courts andthe Rules of Pleading Therein, ch. 4, sec. 14, 1861-’62-’63-’64 & 1859 Public Laws of the State of NorthCarolina 5, 8-9 (Raleigh 1866) (ratified September 11,1861).

65. Id.

66. Id.

# TERM TYPE ORIGINALREPORT

N.C.REPORT

# OFPAGES

1 1847 opinions 7 Iredell Law 29 1101847 opinions 4 Iredell Equity 39 37

2

1848 opinions 8 Iredell Law 30 921848 opinions 10 Iredell Law 32 201848 opinions 5 Iredell Equity 40 301848 opinions 6 Iredell Equity 41 48





7 1853 opinions Busbee Law 44 921853 opinions Busbee Equity 45 57

8 1854 opinions 1 Jones Law 46* 1111854 opinions 1 Jones Equity 54 58



11 1857 opinions 4 Jones Law 49* 891857 opinions 3 Jones Equity 56* 32



14 1860 opinions 7 Jones Law 52 581860 opinions 5 Jones Equity 58 23

15 1861 opinions 8 Jones Law 53 151861 opinions 6 Jones Equity 59 3

1849 rule 10 Iredell Law 32 21849 rule 6 Iredell Equity 41 21858 rule 4 Jones Equity 57 2

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES = 2,000

YEAR CHIEFJUSTICE JUDGE JUDGE

1847 Ruffin, Thomas Daniel, Joseph J. Nash, Frederick

1848 Battle, William H. Pearson, Richmond M.

1852 Nash, Frederick Battle, William H. 1858 Pearson, Richmond M. Ruffin, Thomas1859 Manly, Matthias E.


I realized early in my career that obliga-tions to my clients far exceed the representa-tion provided in the courtroom. This is dou-bly true anytime one represents indigentclients, especially in the arena of criminaldefense. Most indigent clients face severeunderrepresentation for their legal matters,except where an attorney is a constitutionalright, such as court-appointed representationfor a criminal charge. Under these circum-stances, it is likely that their court-appointedattorney is the first lawyer with whom they

have ever had a close interpersonal relation-ship. As such, said attorney will probably beasked questions that surpass the scope of thecourt-appointed representation. It’s notuncommon, for example, for a client to showup to court and present their attorney withany number of legal notices they havereceived, including collections, evictions,DMV suspension notices, even announce-ments for public rezoning hearings. The real-ity is that this attorney may be the onlycounsel to which they have or have had

access. Most of our clients’ salient issues willfall outside of our practice areas. I think thisis when being a counselor at law matters. Itdoesn’t hurt to at least read the letter, providea referral to a colleague or Legal Aid, or evenoffer limited legal advice with regards to thesituation when possible.

Often our clients are in jail not becausethey have been convicted of a crime, butbecause they are accused of a crime and can-not afford bail. When representing clients injail, I find our duties as a counselor some-

CounselorB Y R Y A N S T O W E

In the center of every North Carolina law license, printed in bold type, are the words “ATTORNEY AND

COUNSELOR AT LAW.” That language is not archaic. In fact, I think it’s particularly relevant to the practice

of law today. I don’t make the argument that the latter part of our title is more important to our practice than

the former;

however, I do believe that it is more critical

to our clients than many lawyers acknowl-

edge. It seems that all too often attorneys

overlook their duties as counselors. Despite

the historic charge our licenses bear, in prac-

tice and in theory the profession seems to have forgotten the fullness of its original intentions.

WINTER 201818

©iStockphoto.com

/PeopleImages

times outweigh our responsibilities as anattorney. Frequently, when visiting clientswho are in jail I am asked to send messages tofamily members and other loved ones toupdate them on their cases. Sometimes thosemessages have involved me calling a client’smom to say, “John Doe asked me to tell youthat he loves you.” In that situation, limitingmy role to that of an attorney would probablyhave involved me making motions for bondreductions or eschewing such sentimentalpursuits in favor of working on the case athand. Accepting the full charge of “attorneyand counselor,” however, means making con-cessions for interpersonal considerations,which can be just as impactful as the legalproceedings themselves.

Empathy is a vital attribute, even in fulfill-ing the basic tenets of an attorney’s legal obli-gations to their clients. Understanding howother people feel—and doing more active lis-tening than talking—is the basis of showingempathy, which is a critical factor in the lead-ing models of displaying emotional intelli-gence. Most clients are not oblivious to thefact that some attorneys care more about theircases than the clients do themselves, andsome criticize the one-dimensional approachof their attorney towards their legal cases. Todispel these perceptions and advance the pro-fession, attorneys must concern themselveswith the welfare of the client, not just theirlegal matter. This rededication to the individ-uals and communities we serve will fosterprofessional growth, and attorney-client rela-tionships will take firmer root. Seeminglyinnocuous details such as showing empathyto clients are often invaluable to winningcases. In the event of a loss, compassion canbe a potent salve to the client’s immediatereaction to the outcome.

There are times when one’s duties to theirclient seem skewed to counseling rather thanpractical representation. While it is importantto maintain professional boundaries anddecorum, we must understand the necessityof providing earnest counsel tailored to spe-cific client needs. An attorney can contributeimmensely to the growth of their client byempowering them to prevent the reoccur-rence of problems. Addressing singular caseswithout taking the time to appreciate aclient’s root issue is shortsighted and mayinadvertently contribute to future conun-drums. For example, when assisting clients infiling copyright applications, I make it a pointto clarify every stage in order to help them

actualize the process. When clients under-stand the finer points of documentation andmotions as well as the big picture, it helpsthem make better-informed decisions in theirgeneral business operations. This is a verysimple consideration that can have a majorimpact on a client’s endeavors. Things likethis aren’t always stressed in law school, butare essential to the practice.

As counselors, by actively listening we getto know our clients, leading to clearer insightinto their needs and goals. The first opportu-nity to build this rapport arises during ourinitial client interview. This rapport is imper-ative, especially to any situation in which anattorney must negotiate with another partyon behalf of their client. The more effectivelywe listen, the higher the chances are that wecan meet our clients’ needs during negotia-tions, and perhaps even broker a win-win sce-nario for the other party as well. As intuitiveas it seems, simply listening to clients andpaying attention to what they express is a fun-damental technique many attorneys fail toemploy, especially when working within dis-advantaged communities.

On a surface level, prioritizing counselover simplifying practical action may seemaverse to a client’s best interest. A closer look,however, may show that carefully consideredinterpersonal action is indeed beneficial. Irecently represented a 16-year-old male, award of the state living in a Department ofSocial Services group home. I representedhim on two simple assault charges. My clienthad severe issues managing his anger. Thejudge sentenced the young man to supervisedprobation. During sentencing I asked thejudge if he would consider requiring the com-pletion of an anger management course as apart of his probation requirements. Generally,tacking on extra requirements for a client iscounterintuitive, but I knew my client wouldbenefit as a person as a result. I didn’t want tosee him in the court system again. Ithought—or at least I hoped—that maybethis anger management course would be theintervention he needed in order to notbecome a person involved with the criminaljustice system for the remainder of his life.While there is no guarantee this will be thecase, I am confident in my judgment of thesituation based on the earnest conversations Ihad with my client. Judgment calls can andwill be wrong; practicing empathy successful-ly mitigates these risks.

There are times when our clients just want

to be heard. For some, just “getting their dayin court” is more important than the out-come. In those moments, client consultationscan easily feel like therapy sessions, especiallyin the context of family law. When our clientswant to know if they are validated in theirfeelings, an impersonal, strictly legal perspec-tive may be inconducive to positive develop-ment. This is when embracing the counselorrole flourishes the most.

Sometimes being a counselor feels morelike being a social worker than an attorney,but I think those moments are when we doour best work. There have been times whenI’ve had to drive clients to court or even call

C O N T I N U E D O N P A G E 2 1

18-206


On September 14, 2018,Hurricane Florence hit thecoast of North Carolinanear Wrightsville Beach.When it reached the shore,

the Category 1 storm brought winds of 90miles per hour. Record-breaking stormsurge levels were recorded in several coastalcommunities. Over the next four days, the

hurricane lingered andsome areas across thestate experienced threefeet of rain, the wettesttropical cyclone record-ed in North Carolina.Catastrophic floodingacross North Carolinalasted for several weeksclosing major roads anddamaging infrastruc-ture, homes, and busi-nesses. A disaster wasdeclared in 31 out of100 North Carolinacounties. Just a fewweeks later, a new roundof wind, rain, and flood-ing hit as Tropical StormMichael passed throughNorth Carolina, impacting western and cen-tral North Carolina counties.

Impact of the HurricaneAs the legal community responds, initial

assessments about the impact of HurricaneFlorence suggest we will be in this recoveryfor years to come. The social and economiccosts of Hurricane Florence are still beingassessed. At least 48 deaths were attributedto the storm, including the loss of 37 NorthCarolinians. According to Moody’sAnalytics, the estimated economic cost ofthe event ranges from $38 to $50 billion asof September 21, including property dam-age, vehicle loss, and lost output. By theseestimates, Hurricane Florence is among theten most costly hurricanes in United States

history. Arriving at the peak of fall harvest season

in North Carolina, the storm brought anestimated $1 billion in crop damages andlivestock losses. State and federal officials arestill working to determine the extent of thestorm’s impact on water quality and toaddress concerns about other environmentalcontaminations. Another less quantifiablesignificant cost is the lost educational timefor school children in impacted areas wheresome schools were closed for several weeks.

Even though the daily updates on thelocal news have subsided, real problems per-sist in eastern North Carolina followingHurricane Florence. Common sense tells usthat the individuals in need before disasterstrikes will continue to be among the most

Recovering from Disaster:“Helpers” in the LegalCommunity Respond

B Y M A R Y I R V I N E

Disaster Legal Services VolunteerOpportunities

The North Carolina Bar Association,FEMA, the American Bar Association,and Legal Aid of North Carolina arecollaborating to provide immediate probono assistance to Hurricane Florencevictims through the Disaster LegalServices Hotline. Volunteers are neededto provide brief advice and services andassist with phone intake.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, theNorth Carolina Bar Foundation, andthe North Carolina Pro Bono ResourceCenter are also working to staff infor-mation and resource tables at disasterrecovery centers and host other clinicson the ground with community organi-zations to answer legal questions.

Visit ncbar.org/florence for moreinformation about volunteer opportuni-ties.

Additional information andresources for volunteers are available atncprobono.org.

Hurricane Florence is pictured from the International Space Stationas a Category 1 storm as it was making landfall near WrightsvilleBeach, North Carolina. Photo from NASA.

WINTER 201820


vulnerable during and after the event. UsingCensus data, the Social Vulnerability Indexcreated by the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention seeks to pinpoint the mostvulnerable communities expected to needsupport, a need only exacerbated by disas-ter. Variables like socioeconomic status,household composition, disability, minoritystatus, language, housing, and transporta-tion are considered. Twenty-one of the 31counties where disaster has been declaredare identified by the index as the most vul-nerable.

With support from NC IOLTA, the NCEqual Access to Justice Commission, inpartnership with various legal groups inSouth Carolina, created a website with storymaps to help demonstrate the impact andlegal needs following Hurricane Florence.For more information, visit bitly.com/NClegalaid.

How Legal Aid HelpsCivil legal aid has a critical role in help-

ing communities recover from disasters. Inthe immediate aftermath of a disaster, attor-neys and legal advocates guide victimsthrough administrative processes and identi-fy legal issues. Landlord-tenant questions,issues with applying for FEMA assistanceand other benefits, referrals to communityservices, and replacement of lost documentsare among the most pressing concerns.Later, as victims rebuild, other civil legalissues arise: appeals of benefit denials, con-sumer scams, foreclosure prevention, andinsurance claims.

To help respond to these issues, NCIOLTA recently approved grants to two col-laborative projects that will provide legalservices to Hurricane Florence victims:

• Legal Aid of North Carolina, the NorthCarolina Bar Foundation, and the NorthCarolina Pro Bono Resource Center wereawarded $161,100 to engage pro bono vol-unteers to help individuals impacted byHurricane Florence including advice offeredthrough the Disaster Legal Services Hotlineand in-person “know your rights” presenta-tions and brief advice clinics.

• The North Carolina Justice Centerand the Financial Protection Law Centerreceived $65,500 to support placement of abilingual legal services advocate inWilmington to assist hurricane victims ineastern North Carolina who are immi-grants and may not be able to be served by

other efforts.In this moment of crisis in North

Carolina, it is heartening to see concernpouring in from outside our state. In theearly days after Florence hit, lawyers, lawfirms, and bar groups across the countrybegan reaching out to offer their support. Inresponse to the need, on October 2, 2018,the North Carolina Supreme Courtapproved the North Carolina State Bar’stemporary rule amendment allowing lawyerslicensed outside of North Carolina to imme-diately begin providing pro bono legal servicesto indigent victims of Hurricane Florence.This emergency rule streamlines the processby which out of state lawyers can provide probono services through a nonprofit legal serv-ices organization. For more informationabout the rule and a copy of the form to reg-ister with the State Bar, visit the State Bar’swebsite at ncbar.gov.

Look for the HelpersFred Rogers, the longtime PBS host who

spent more than 30 years teaching youngchildren through his show Mister Rogers’Neighborhood, relayed a story from his child-hood to ease the minds of his watchers intimes of tragedy and disaster. Mr. Rogerssaid his mother always told him that, despitethe hardship that accompanies disaster, weshould “look for the helpers” because thereare always people helping, people who careand want to give of themselves to lift othersand ease their suffering.

In the early days following the hurricane,many “helpers” were on the ground torespond to the disaster: rescue teams, fire-fighters, first responders, police officers, RedCross workers, neighbors, line crews work-ing to restore power, volunteers serving hotmeals in shelters, collecting and transportingsupplies to communities in need, andremoving debris from yards. The secondwave of support encompasses a broadergroup, including staff of NC’s legal aidproviders and private attorney volunteerswho are working to help the most vulnerableindividuals and communities recover fromHurricane Florence.

If you have not already, considering join-ing the legal community’s team of “helpers”today. n

Mary Irvine is the executive director of theNorth Carolina State Bar Plan for Interest onLawyers’ Trust Accounts (NC IOLTA).

Counselor (cont.)them a taxi, especially clients with revokedlicenses. Of course, forcing clients to courtisn’t in our job description, but acting in thebest interests of our clients is supremely root-ed in our duties. When it’s 8:30 AM and aclient realizes that they no longer have a rideto court at 9:00 AM, they are faced witheither breaking the law and driving them-selves or missing court in its entirety. Theirinstinct is to call their lawyer, and thatinstinct should be a reliable one.

We should not only be proud to be attor-neys, but to also be counselors at law. Whilethe strategy and satisfaction of courtroomproceedings are often more appealing, thereis a certain level of gratification that comeswhen serving the interpersonal needs of aclient. It is my belief that if attorneys serve intheir capacity as counselors more passionate-ly, they’ll see an increase in their effectivenessas well as career satisfaction, the legal indus-try will become more robust and expansive,and the perception of the profession by thepublic will become more amiable. As you goabout practicing your craft, I invite you toask yourself, “How completely am I respond-ing to the full call of the attorney and coun-selor at law?” n

Ryan Stowe is the principal attorney at ThePolaris Law Firm. Stowe is a first generationRowan County attorney, who is proud to bepracticing in his hometown of Salisbury, NC.He focuses his practice on traffic violations, crim-inal law, and intellectual property.

Interested in acquiring/mergingwith estate planning law firms

or take over fromretiring/deceased attorneysespecially in western NorthCarolina. We have 7 lawyers

and a full support teamincluding probate. Very client

centric. Contact: Andrew A.Strauss at

[email protected] or828.210.0506.

You see, George (his enemies and only afew friends call him Georgie, which makessense when you consider that there are a sheafof Georges walking around in the family)likes to run one, and only one, kind of footrace: marathons. Across town, anotherlawyer, “Iron Man” David Daggett, has par-ticipated in over 100 triathlons, a uniqueachievement in the bar of this and manyother states. But George prefers marathons,all 26 miles, 385 yards, although he logs a lotof half-marathons for training purposes only(around 60 to date), and before he reachesthat fast-approaching age where he can nolonger go the distance, he plans to blanket theglobe. With 800 marathons to choose fromworld-wide each year, he can take his pick.

But this was not always the case. In 2009George was just another lawyer in privatepractice, and a major couch potato. At fivefeet, ten inches, he weighed in at 240 pounds,with a body mass index approaching morbidobesity and an ominous upward trend in hisblood pressure. He knew he needed to trimsome serious pounds off his beltline, but hehad the body of a boxer, not a runner. Yetboxing was not an option for a man in his late40s, so he dressed out in running togs and apair of Nikes and starting jogging. And badly.It was a struggle at first; Cleland was happy tomake it around the block a couple of times.But every single day, hot or cold, rain orshine, he faithfully trotted out his laps.

After a while he got up to a mile or more,

and a beautiful new addiction started to kickin. He found he liked moving forward in astraight line, watching his waistline shrink,not unlike Jim Fixx (The Complete Book ofRunning, 1977), who was an overweight,chain-smoking weakling at the age of 35when he hit the pavement and jump-startedthe American fitness revolution in the 70sbefore dying of a massive coronary at the ageof 52. In the heat of July 2009, George droveout to Salem Lake after work and knockedout his first seven-mile run. By then, he wastotally hooked.

George was ready for his first race thatSeptember—not a big one, 5K (3.1 miles).He finished that challenge, but that wasabout all, for despite an amazing weight loss,

Running ManB Y G . G R A Y W I L S O N

Pheidippides never met George Cleland IV. The former ran from the

Battle of Marathon in 490 BC to Athens to tell the Greek citizens that

the Persians had been defeated, then collapsed and died. George Cleland

is also a man on the run. He has been running for years now from his

home base in Winston-Salem, after raising a family of three with his wife Melissa (a charming

redhead, but not a runner) while engaged in a full-time general civil and criminal law practice

with his father (you guessed it, George Cleland III) and sister. He has been running literally all

over the world during the past eight years.

WINTER 201822

he was still hauling a 200-pound framearound the track. So he kept on running, andas he progressed he was able to pick up thepace and the mileage, while dropping downto a trim 175 pounds. A year later he wasready. On December 5, 2010, at the age of47, Cleland flew to Dallas, Texas, and loggedthe White Rock Marathon in three hours and48 minutes, not too shabby for a runningdebut. Maybe not Abebe Bikila, theEthiopian marathon god who won the 1960Olympics in Rome—barefooted—only torepeat the feat in Tokyo four years later, butstill a respectable showing, especially consid-ering that while they were the same height,Bikila only weighed 126 pounds. (Note thatBikila died at the age of 41 from a stroke, fiveyears younger than Cleland was when he hitthe trail for the first time.)

The training for this race had been gruel-ing, up to 50 miles per week with a couple ofjaunts over 20 miles. While that alone mightbe enough to check off the bucket list formost men (and women) his age, Clelandlaunched into an odyssey of marathoningaround the United States and elsewhere. Ittakes a lot of maintenance: 35-40 miles perweek, about 1,800 miles per year. The follow-ing is a list of belt notches he has added sinceDallas:

2011 UHC Marathon, High Point2012 Rock & Roll Marathon, Phoenix

Edinburgh Marathon, ScotlandRichmond Marathon, VA

2013 Boston MarathonBudapest Marathon, Hungary

2014 Boston MarathonNew York City Marathon

2015 Boston MarathonAuckland Marathon, New Zealand

2016 Boston MarathonGrandfather Mountain MarathonErie Marathon, PADublin Marathon, Ireland

2017 Charleston Marathon, SCBoston MarathonHatfield & McCoy Marathon, KY/WVHamilton Marathon, OHChicago MarathonRDC Marathon, Durham

2018 Charleston Marathon, SC Boston Marathon Amsterdam Marathon

George is not planning to slack off anytime soon. On October 8, 2017, he ran theChicago Marathon in three hours, 30 min-

utes, climbing a horrific hill at the finish line.Then he logged the RDC Marathon inDurham in December 2017, followed by theCharleston Marathon in January 2018. Andin October 2018 he ran the AmsterdamMarathon.

George was in Boston on April 15, 2013,when he ran a personal best of three hoursand 21 minutes, which may be why he is alivetoday. He was already back in his hotel nearthe finish line when two pressure-cookerbombs detonated, killing three, maiming 16,and injuring hundreds. He first learned aboutthe explosion that rocked the country whilestanding in front of the television in the hotelbar. Outside it was pure chaos, with lawenforcement trying to lock down the citywhile everyone rushed to the airport to leave.Every year since, he has qualified andreturned to Boston for this legendary race.Despite temperatures in the 80s in 2017,George still posted a time of three hours, 40minutes, an excellent performance from a guyin his mid-50s. Then on April 16, 2018, in40 degree rain and a fierce headwind, he stillmanaged to eke out a time of four hours, tenminutes. This was his sixth trip to Boston forthe race. With him was his son, George V,running his fourth Boston Marathon in twohours, 50 minutes. Georges IV and V havealready qualified and registered to run theBoston Marathon again in April 2019.

So why does a mere lawyer engage in suchherculean pursuits? He has nothing toprove—certainly not now—to himself, to hisfamily, or to anyone else. Cleland has a strongheart, unlike Mr. Fixx, but he is never goingto work off another 50 pounds to get downto Bikila’s running heft. After Boston thisyear, George was having trouble going downstairs for over a week. However, as long as hislegs hold out, he plans to keep on trucking.

Maybe George has another reason forrunning. Forty-five years ago a companynow known as Nike was a struggling mom ‘n’pop shoe store based in Oregon. Sales weresteady but limited despite its new waffle soleinnovation, which should have been a mar-keting smash hit. The founder, Phil Knight(now in his 80s), was forced to the brink ofbankruptcy on multiple occasions for lack ofthat liquid gold known as cash flow, becausethe American banking industry frankly hadno use for a start-up sports shoe manufactur-er in need of capital. Then a kid at theUniversity of Oregon named StevePrefontaine strapped on a pair of Nikes and

decided he like them. That was all it took.This endorsement launched a billion-dollarenterprise as “Pre,” as he was known,promptly headed out to the track and brokeevery distance record in the country from2,000 to 10,000 meters. Today, running is aneven bigger business than the craze thatseized a nation several decades ago. It is thequintessential fitness regimen that without adoubt has extended countless life spans, notto mention the reduction in stress andimproved quality of life for millions.

George could just be riding the wave. n

G. Gray Wilson, president of the State Bar,is a partner with the Winston-Salem firm ofNelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

CALL 800.532.1349

NCCOMMUNITYFOUNDATION.ORG

We add value to your

practice by extending your

expertise and helping your

clients reach their

philanthropic goals.

e add value to your W

opic goals.philanthr

each their clients r



e add value to your W

TIONCCOMMUNITYFOUNDAAT

1349. CALL 800.532

opic goals.

each their



e add value to your

TION.ORG


DisbarmentsPaige C. Cabe of Sanford embezzled

entrusted funds and committed other trustaccount violations, did not respond to theState Bar, neglected and did not communi-cate with clients, did not refund unearnedfees, and engaged in dishonest conduct andin conduct prejudicial to the administrationof justice. She was disbarred by theDisciplinary Hearing Commission.

Alvaro De La Calle of Greensboro aban-doned clients, collected fees without provid-ing the legal services for which he was paid,misrepresented the services he would pro-vide to clients, engaged in conduct involvingdishonesty, revealed confidential informa-tion about his clients to others, split feeswithout his clients’ knowledge or permis-sion, and engaged in conduct prejudicial tothe administration of justice. At the time ofhis surrender, De La Calle was serving a five-year suspension imposed in 16 DHC 19. Hesurrendered his license and was disbarred bythe DHC.

The DHC disbarred Carson Freeman ofCharlotte. Freeman misappropriatedentrusted funds and committed other trustaccount violations.

A. Scott Hamilton of Henderson surren-dered his law license and was disbarred bythe Wake County Superior Court.Hamilton acknowledged that he misappro-priated entrusted funds totaling at least$3122.50.

Fletcher R. Hartsell Jr. of Concord sub-mitted his affidavit of surrender of lawlicense and was disbarred by the council onOctober 26. Hartsell pled guilty and wasconvicted of (1) mail fraud in violation of 18U.S.C. §§1341 and 1342; (2) filing false taxreturns for the year 2010 in violation of 26U.S.C. §7206(1); and (3) certifying and fil-ing false campaign reports with the NorthCarolina State Board of Elections in viola-tion of N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-278.32.

Trevor Huck of Albemarle submitted hisaffidavit of surrender of law license and wasdisbarred by the council on October 26.

Huck pled guilty and was convicted of thefelony offense of receipt of child pornogra-phy in violation of 18 U.S.C.§2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(2).

Matthew A. Smith of Raleigh was con-victed of taking indecent liberties with achild, a felony, in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-202.1. He was disbarred by theDHC.

Lawrence Wittenburg of Cary surren-dered his law license and was disbarred bythe Wake County Superior Court.Wittenberg acknowledged that he misap-propriated at least $170,000 to which hislaw firm was entitled by cashing checks ten-dered in payment of legal fees while he wasa salaried employee of the firm.

Suspensions & Stayed SuspensionsThe DHC found that Joseph Eric

Altman of Rockingham violated multipletrust account rules. Altman also disclosedconfidential client information to a jurywithout his client’s permission, resulting in amistrial. He was suspended for two years.The suspension is stayed for three yearsupon Altman’s compliance with enumeratedconditions.

Joseph Forbes of Elizabeth City violatedmultiple trust account rules. The rule viola-tions were established by default. The DHCsuspended Forbes for three years. After serv-ing six months active suspension, Forbes willbe eligible to petition for a stay of the bal-ance upon demonstrating compliance withenumerated conditions.

The Martin County Superior Court sus-pended the law license of David E.Gurganus of Williamston. Gurganus is dis-abled by a condition that renders himunavailable to perform legal services for hisclients.

The DHC found that Thomas S. Hicksof Wilmington abandoned several clients,did not refund unearned fees when he wassuspended by the DHC in 15 DHC 16, anddid not respond to the GrievanceCommittee. It suspended him for threeyears effective immediately upon the expira-

tion of the five-year suspension imposed in15 DHC 16.

Jonathan Hunt of Durham falsified dateson certificates of service. The DHC suspend-ed him for one year. The suspension is stayedfor three years upon Hunt’s compliance withenumerated conditions.

James N. Jorgensen of Raleigh neglectedclients, did not promptly disburse entrustedfunds, made a false statement to clients, didnot reconcile his trust accounts, and did nottimely respond to the Grievance Committee.The DHC suspended him for three years.The suspension is stayed for three years uponJorgensen’s compliance with enumeratedconditions.

Brent King of Huntersville violated mul-tiple trust account rules. The DHC suspend-ed him for two years. The suspension isstayed for two years upon King’s compliancewith enumerated conditions.

Stayed Suspensions ActivatedIn August 2017 the DHC suspended

Charlotte lawyer Robert M. Donlon’s licensefor one year and stayed the suspension fortwo years. Donlon threatened to exposeembarrassing or incriminating informationabout attorneys in a firm that had brought alawsuit against him in order to intimidatethem into paying legal fees he incurreddefending the lawsuit. The DHC concludedthat Donlon did not comply with the condi-tions of the stay. On October 18, 2018, itlifted the stay and activated the suspension.After serving six months active suspension,Donlon will be eligible to apply for a stay ofthe balance.

CensuresKenneth Davies of Charlotte was cen-

sured by the Grievance Committee. Daviesallowed his paralegal, a former lawyer whowas disbarred because he misappropriatedentrusted funds, to provide legal services andadvice directly to a North Carolina residentand failed to take reasonable measures toensure that his nonlawyer assistant’s conductwas compatible with Davies’ professional

T H E D I S C I P L I N A R Y D E P A R T M E N T

Grievance Committee and DHC Actions

WINTER 201824

obligations.The Grievance Committee censured

attorney David Michael O’Bryan, formerlyof Kannapolis. O’Bryan was convicted ofcontempt of court. The court found that,while representing a criminal defendant,O’Bryan made misrepresentations to thecourt, knowingly disobeyed an obligationunder the rules of the tribunal, did not actwith diligence, and did not adequately com-municate with his client.

The Grievance Committee censuredShannon Reid of Gastonia. Reid neglectedand did not keep his client informed. He alsodid not respond to the local GrievanceCommittee. The committee found as aggra-vating circumstances that Reid had prior dis-cipline for failing to respond to the State Barand for neglecting a client’s case.

Robin Verhoeven of Carrboro was cen-sured by the Grievance Committee.Verhoeven neglected and did not communi-cate with her clients in three domestic cases,made material misrepresentations to oneclient and to the Grievance Committee, anddid not respond to the GrievanceCommittee.

ReprimandsThe Grievance Committee reprimanded

Joseph Altman of Rockingham for neglect-ing and failing to communicate with a client.The committee found as an aggravating cir-cumstance that Altman had a prior repri-mand for neglecting a client and failing toappear in court.

Sean T. Dillenbeck of Paw Creek was rep-rimanded by the Grievance Committee. Hedid not notify his client that arbitration wasscheduled in its case and did not attend thearbitration. When his law partners called tofind out where he was, Dillenbeck told themthat he was working from home when he wasactually in New York City. A significant judg-ment was entered at arbitration against hisclient. Later, Dillenbeck did not assist histhen former law partners in their efforts toobtain relief from the judgment, effectivelyabandoning his client. He also made a mis-representation to the Grievance Committee.

Joseph H. Forbes Jr. of Elizabeth Citywas reprimanded by the GrievanceCommittee. He did not communicate withhis client and did not settle his client’s per-sonal injury claim or file a civil action beforethe statute of limitations expired. Forbes hadpreviously failed to file a personal injury

action before it was time barred. The Grievance Committee reprimanded

Douglas K. Simmons of Charlotte.Simmons aided the unauthorized practice oflaw by Lexington Law. Before Lexington Lawregistered as an interstate law firm, Simmonsprovided legal services to North Carolina res-idents on behalf of and at the direction ofLexington Law, allowed Lexington Law todirect and control the legal services he pro-vided, shared a fee with a nonlawyer, and col-lected an illegal fee by accepting a portion ofthe fees collected by Lexington Law fromNorth Carolina consumers. Simmons didnot supervise his nonlawyer assistants ofLexington Law and allowed his nonlawyerassistants to solicit clients.

Transfers to Disability Inactive StatusWendelyn R. Harris of Virginia, formerly

of Raleigh, was transferred to disability inac-tive status by the DHC.

Reinstatements from DisabilityInactive Status

The DHC reinstated Heather AnneShade of Fairview to active status from dis-ability inactive status.

Stays of Existing SuspensionsTracey Cline was the elected district attor-

ney of Durham County until she wasremoved from office pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. §7A-66. In June 2015, Cline was sus-pended by the DHC for five years for filingpleadings containing false and outrageousstatements about a judge and for makingfalse representations in court filings in anattempt to obtain confidential prison visita-tion records. The order provided that Clinewould receive credit toward the five years forany time she did not practice law since shewas removed from office, and provided thatafter serving two years of the suspension,Cline would be eligible to petition for a stayof the balance. Cline filed two petitions toreinstate her law license which were deniedbecause Cline was not eligible at those timesto seek reinstatement. Cline’s third petitionfor reinstatement was granted.

In October 2016, R. Kelly Calloway Jr.of Hendersonville was suspended for fouryears for failing to file and pay state taxes in2009 and failing to file or pay withholdingand unemployment taxes for six years. Theorder provided that Calloway would be eligi-ble to petition for a stay after serving a year

of active suspension. In March 2018 theDHC denied Calloway’s first petition for astay, but allowed Calloway to petition againafter six months. The DHC grantedCalloway’s second petition effectiveSeptember 13, 2018.

Orders of Reciprocal DisciplineThe chair of the Grievance Committee

issued an order of reciprocal discipline repri-manding George Robert Blakey of ParadiseValley, Arizona. In 2015 the District ofColumbia Office of Bar Counsel issued apublic informal admonition to Blakey forknowingly assisting his client in revealingconfidences and secrets or using a confidenceor secret to the disadvantage of a formerclient/employer.

Notices of Intent to SeekReinstatement

In the Matter of Alexander Lapinski Notice is hereby given that Alexander

Lapinski of Durham intends to file a petitionfor reinstatement before the DisciplinaryHearing Commission of the North CarolinaState Bar. Lapinski surrendered his licenseand was disbarred by the Wake CountySuperior Court effective June 20, 2012.Lapinski’s disbarment was the result of hisguilty plea in federal court to one felonycount of unlawful procurement of citizen-ship or naturalization under 18 U.S.C. Sec.1425 by aiding and abetting his client inseeking US citizenship under a false name.

In the Matter of Creighton W.Sossomon

Notice is hereby given that Creighton W.Sossomon of Highlands intends to file a peti-tion for reinstatement before theDisciplinary Hearing Commission of theNorth Carolina State Bar. Sossomon wasdisbarred by Order dated October 16, 2012,pursuant to voluntary surrender of his licenseon October 2, 2012, in which he admittedthe unauthorized use of entrusted funds forthe benefit of someone other than the bene-ficial owner.

Individuals who wish to note their con-currence with or opposition to these peti-tions should file written notice with thesecretary of the North Carolina State Bar,PO Box 25908, Raleigh, NC, 27611,before February 1, 2019 (60 days afterpublication). n


Is It Time for Your Firm to Take Up theMindfulness Mantle?B Y L A U R A M A H R

P A T H W A Y S T O W E L L B E I N G

By now, you’ve probably heard about thebenefits of mindfulness for lawyers. From re-ducing stress and strengthening the immunesystem, to improving sleep, lowering bloodpressure, and reducing anxiety, mindfulness(the practice of being present in the momentwithout judgment)—and mindfulness med-itation in particular—has been shown to im-prove mental and physical health in innu-merable ways. Research also shows thatmindfulness meditation has positive benefitson cognitive functioning, including improvedmemory, attention span, focus, and creativethinking—the exact competencies lawyersare paid to affect daily.

Whose Job Is It?By and large, the legal field perceives

mindfulness as something to be undertakenfor personal reasons after hours. Despite thebenefits of practicing mindfulness, most firmsdo not regard mindfulness education as abusiness necessity, nor do they invest in in-house mindfulness training for lawyers, letalone for the entire staff. It may be time toshift perspectives. Employing a workforcethat practices mindfulness has tangible ben-efits, including less absenteeism due to illness,fewer mistakes due to absent-mindedness,and lower turnover due to burnout.

Think of it This WayYour firm is a fish tank—your workforce

are the fish, the water is the office culture.Which is more efficient: hoping one fish at atime will take up the mantle for its own well-being, or providing the water, food, and aer-ation that creates an environment that bol-sters the wellbeing of the entire school?Simply put, why hope individual lawyers willeventually find tools to decrease stress in their“free time” when you can operationalizemindfulness practices, cultivating an officeculture that supports the wellbeing and effi-cacy of the entire legal team… starting now?

©iStockphoto.com

/Juergen Sack

WINTER 201826

This summer, the ABA’s Law Practice

Division’s monthly publication,

Law Practice Today (LPT), focused

entirely on the issue of lawyer well-

being. The “Attorney Wellbeing Issue” (lawpracticetoday.org/?is-

sue=attorney-well-being-issue-august-2018) highlighted a myriad

of wellness-related topics, from how law practice impacts our

intimate relationships, to how to think like a leader. I was invited

to submit an article on mindfulness for the publication. Based on the positive feedback I’ve received from LPT readers, I share my

article, “Is It Time for Your Firm to Take Up the Mindfulness Mantle?” here. In doing so, I would like to recognize and commend

the numerous forward-thinking North Carolina law firms, judicial districts, nonprofits, and organizations that, in addition to the

North Carolina Bar Association and the North Carolina State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program, have sponsored me to conduct

mindfulness CLEs. The pioneering leadership around our state in understanding the value of mindfulness training for attorneys

and judges is putting North Carolina on the national lawyer wellbeing map.


ABA Call to ActionThe recommendations published by the

ABA’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being follow this logic. In 2016, after theJournal of Addiction Medicine published alandmark study conducted by the ABACommission on Lawyer AssistancePrograms and the Betty Hazelden FordFoundation revealing alarmingly high ratesof mental health distress among lawyers, theABA’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being published The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for PositiveChange. The publication is an appeal tonumerous stakeholders in the legal field tobuild infrastructures that support attorneywellbeing. It “recommend[s]that legalemployers provide education and trainingon wellbeing-related topics and recruitexperts to help them do so,” citing that “anumber of law firms already offer wellbeing-related programs, like meditation, yoga ses-sions, and resilience workshops.”

Bang for your BuckLaw offices can take many paths to re-

spond to the ABA’s call to action, yet mind-fulness is a relatively simple, cost-effective,and yielding place to start. While mindfulnessitself is not a panacea to the many stress-re-lated health challenges that lawyers face, itdoes offer concrete tools that, if practiced,result in real-life change. One benefit tomindfulness practices is that they don’t wearout or become irrelevant, and they can beexpanded on over time. In addition, the fi-nancial investment is relatively low, as an en-tire workforce—management, lawyers, andsupport staff—can be trained at the sametime using the same curriculum.

Finding a trainer who is not only an expertin mindfulness, but is also versed in law, canmake the material more relevant and tailoredto your legal team, increasing the likelihoodof follow-through. In my experience as amindfulness-based resilience trainer, a one-shot office-wide training is an effective wayto introduce basic mindfulness concepts andgauge interest and receptivity to integratingmindfulness into the workplace. If your teambuys in, an ongoing course, such as one thatmeets weekly for six to eight weeks—in per-son or virtually—and provides time for skill-building and practice will most effectively“aerate the water in your tank” and lay thefoundation for infusing a “mindfulness men-tality” into your firm culture.

How Mindfulness Improves yourMind and Your Bottom Line

One of the most important benefits ofmindfulness is its ability to promote positiveneuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity is your brain’sability to rewire itself by growing new neuralnetworks that inform the way you cognitivelyfunction, impacting the way you think about,perceive, and remember things. This affectsyour current decision-making and informsthe actions you take, and it can have a signif-icant impact on the success or failure of ourlaw practices.

Unfortunately, the practice of law can im-pact our neuroplasticity in uniquely adverseways. Being steeped in our clients’ problemsall day and being paid to remain hypervigilantto what could go wrong has consequences. Itgrows neural networks that over time cancause lawyers and support staff to perceivethe world and its people as contentious. Thisperspective can cause both individuals andentire legal teams to feel pessimistic, jaded,and wary. We are less effective when our officeculture is poisoned by pessimism as we aremore prone to miss opportunities that couldresolve conflicts—whether with clients, staff,opposing counsel, courts, or in our personalrelationships. Instead of moving quickly to-ward resolution, we may instead ruminatefor days on the problem.

Having the tools to successfully navigateconflict is a large part of effective law officemanagement. Mindfulness tools can not onlyhelp individuals and teams notice when theyfeel stuck due to a pervasive “pessimistic per-spective,” but can also provide new optionsfor resolving conflict. Mindfulness tools thatpromote positive neuroplasticity and buttressclearer thinking inspire the kind of creativeproblem solving that makes our internal op-erations run smoothly. Creative problem solv-ing also provides our clients with better op-tions, and better options often lead to greaterclient satisfaction, and greater client satisfac-tion may naturally lead to optimal businessgrowth.

An Exercise to Build Positive Neuro-plasticity through Mindfulness

Pay attention to how much time yourteam spends in meetings (or even in casualconversation) focusing on what’s “goingwrong” or what needs to be fixed. Then no-tice how much time is spent praising what’s“going right.” While it is normal to focus onproblems that need solving, you can con-

sciously build positive neuroplasticity byspending just a few minutes each day takingstock of your successes.

Try this:1. Take a moment to pause in your work-

day.2. Write down five successes your team

has recently accomplished (be mindful to sus-pend all judgment of how it could have gonebetter).

3. During your next team meeting, or inyour next casual encounter with a team mem-ber, bring up one of those successes.

4. Talk about what makes the successmeaningful to you and how it ties into thegoals/mission of the firm.

5. Appreciate specific team members (orthe individual with whom you’re talking) forspecific ways that they contributed to thesuccess.

6. Notice ways—large or small—the con-versation positively impacts you and/or yourteam.

Collateral Benefits of Bringing Mind-fulness Training to Your Firm

Participants in firms where I have con-ducted mindfulness training report feelingmore connected to their colleagues as a resultof the training. They convey how helpful itis to have a shared professional experiencethat is not casework-specific. They also com-ment that it is refreshing to have somethingwork-related but not legal to talk about, andhow remarkable it feels to be learning some-thing new alongside managing partners. Theobservation I hear most frequently relates tohow relieving it is to have a shared languagearound stress and wellbeing, and a better un-derstanding of how to manage stress as ateam. These anecdotal comments about thecollateral social benefits of firm-wide mind-fulness trainings support the task force’s rec-ommendation for law firms to “actively com-bat social isolation and encourageinterconnectivity” as a way to support lawyerwellbeing.

Take a StepYou can introduce mindfulness into your

firm’s culture or take your firm’s “mindfulnessmentality” to the next level in many ways.Whether you or your team members are newto mindfulness or are already steeped in it,ask yourself, “What is the next best step for


My story starts sometime in 2014. On myway to work, I started (at least once a week)contemplating driving my car off a seven-to-eight foot cliff overlooking the railroads. At thetime, my family law practice was thriving, andI doubt anyone could have known the feelingsand thoughts that I was having. The thoughtsincreased in frequency, but each time I hadthese thoughts, I always convinced myself notto do it because I couldn’t guarantee that Iwouldn’t kill myself or inflict life-long trauma,which would just cause more problems. Ididn’t want to die. I just wanted a break frommy life. However, each day I invested a littlemore time in trying to plan how I could do itand manage to get a short stint in the hospital

and a much-needed break.I tried so many things to stop the thoughts

and get over being so tired all the time. I triedvacations. I went to the beach, the mountains,Florida, and New York City. But I’d beexhausted before I left on the trip and evenmore exhausted upon my return, faced withcatching up on the backlog. Not only didn’tthey fix my problem, vacations seemed toexacerbate it.

Diet and exercise helped somewhat. I wasrunning a 5K a month and participating inCrossfit and Spartan races. I was the mostphysically fit that I have ever been in my lifeduring this same time. No processed foodsfor me. This was wonderful compared to my

chubby, middle-school days where I hatedthe PE and would eat an entire pan of RiceKrispy treats in a single sitting.Unfortunately, except for the hour or so thatI was participating in the exercise or event, itreally didn’t change any of my thoughts ormy mentally exhausted state.

Sleep was minimal during this time. Iroutinely woke up at 3 AM and couldn’t goback to sleep because of thoughts racingthrough my head. I stayed up late at nightrehearsing my statements for trial, argumentsthat would usually never even be spoken. Iconsidered going to the doctor, but I hadheard strange things about sleep meds likeAmbien. I didn’t want to murder someone in

Self-Care vs. Car Wrecks: A Compassion FatigueStoryB Y A N O N Y M O U S

L A W Y E R A S S I S T A N C E P R O G R A M

Iam smart. I really enjoy using my smarts to solve problems: logic problems,

crossword puzzles, strangers needing directions, my clients’ problems, my

friends’ problems, and my family’s problems. But, fixing problems has a

sinister side, just like any addiction, and one can develop compassion fatigue.

The best way to explain “compassion fatigue” comes from my therapist. During a session,

as I was throwing off my defensive statements to her regarding “not caring” or “it’s not my problem,” she openly scoffed that I enjoyed

fixing other’s problems the same way alcoholics drink beer. She observed that I would never be the person who just didn’t care. She is so

right. I like helping people. I like being smart and solving problems. I discovered, however, that the bad side of caring too much and about

the wrong things can lead to not caring at all about most everything.

WINTER 201828


my sleep or go parading around myneighborhood in the nude, so I stayed oncourse with my preferred plan—contemplating my car wreck/hospital stay.

This went on for about a year, until I hadhad enough. I decided I would address myproblem, even though I had no idea what myproblem actually was at that time. Unawareof how much I was subverting my needs toeveryone else’s, my life presented the perfectopportunity for me to finally focus on myself.My 11-year-old was going on a school trip foralmost a week with no access to a cell phoneor me. You see, I didn’t want to upset her orinconvenience her, because I was responsiblefor driving her to school, helping her withhomework, and generally making sure her lifewas good. Plus, her not having a cell phonemeant that if she had any problems, then shecouldn’t call me to fix the problem. Inaddition, I didn’t have court that week either.My clients didn’t have pressing problems tofix! So, I dropped her off at school andwatched her get on the bus. Now I couldfinally focus on me and this problem,whatever it was. I was sure a trip to the doctorwould somehow fix it all.

My regular doctor couldn’t see me. I startedto get frazzled and after casting about for waysto avoid doing so, I finally relented and toldmy husband that I needed to go to the ER. Atthe ER all went smoothly until the doctorasked me the standard question, “Are yousuicidal?” Even though I knew the questionwas coming, I hadn’t rehearsed or eventhought about what I’d say. However, the mostprofound words came to me regarding mycurrent state of mind and problem. I blurtedout, “I don’t think so, but I don’t know what Iam going to do if I have to hear anotherf***king person’s problems.” With thatstatement I meant “person” to include everysingle living thing on this earth: family, friends,clients, political activist groups, donationseekers, Leonardo DiCaprio, random strangersasking for directions…EVERYONE! Heresponded with, “So possibly homicidal orsuicidal,” and laughed kindly.

I got through that day and was given aprescription for the normal stuff doctors handout for depression and anxiety. I scheduledsome follow-up doctor appointments. It wasa lackluster resolution. None of themedications worked for me; they onlyexacerbated my problems over the followingweek. I discovered I don’t synthesize thosemedications well, so they were not going to be

an option for me, which was thoroughlydisappointing. Not to mention, my kid wasback and court appearances were looming.This problem seemed to now be out of hand.I couldn’t just return to the way things werebefore, but did not know what to dodifferently.

It was at my first follow-up appointmentwith my doctor that my “problem” startedgetting defined. My doctor said that I didn’thave a support system. Eureka! I KNEW IT!I finally had confirmation that I wassurrounding by hapless, greedy, needy peoplethat constantly took and took and took fromme. So it turns out they were all jerks after all!Then he went on to say, “You have no supportsystem because you don’t tell anybody what isgoing on and instead just try and handle it allon your own.”

Wait. What? But there it was. I was the jerk. I thought I

was so smart. That I was above it all. That Idid not need community. You did. But notme. I was different and special. The realizationwas gut wrenching.

I was told I could resolve my issues by “justsharing.” Ah, ok. Maybe “just sharing” is easyfor you. Not me.

Here is where my anxiety started ampingup. In order to be effective, my sharing had tobe regardless of how others responded to whatI was sharing. And I needed to share it all,especially the toes-curling-in-my-shoes stuff. Idiscovered that I was really a people-pleasing,low-self-esteem fraud. I faked life well. Ipretended to have it all together, but I wasconstantly speaking unkindly to myself. Icreated unrealistic expectations for myself andwas way too consumed by others’ perceptionof my life. Or what I imagined theirperception to be. In sharing, I started reallydiscovering what was going on in my head andmy life and why I was always so tired. I wasexhausted because I was battling this innerjerk. As I shared this with my support people,I realized that I could change the script goingthrough my head. Noteworthy, my supportsystem was and still is a work in progress.Some people didn’t make the cut and I limitedtheir role in my life. I am working on me andI need truly supportive friends and allies tohelp with that project.

The lone soldier approach doesn’t work.Neither does working by yourself on problemsthat you aren’t properly trained to fix.Reluctantly, my next step was an appointment

for therapy with a psychologist. I hated thethought of talking to a therapist, but it didn’tmatter, because I needed to talk to one. Just asmany people with legal problems need anattorney but hate coming to and paying forone, I knew going to a therapist was the bestthing to do. I was sure a therapist would wantto talk it out and want me to say that I wasdepressed, and anxiety-ridden, and admit thatattorneys just have sucky lives. Well, she didn’t.She told me about “Compassion Fatigue.” It’slike burnout, but it is from dealing with otherpeoples’ problems For example, like where yousolve people’s problems for a living but also putyourself in a position to have everyone cometo you with their problems because you reallylike solving others’ problems, and they don’tknow to stop because you haven’t told themto stop and now you’re ill because of it. Sheexplained that in her profession, compassionfatigue is common and they have workshops,conferences, and retreats to deal withcompassion fatigue/vicarious trauma.

The first thing that she taught me was thatI need to put myself first. If I am exhausted, Iam of no use to my clients, my family, oranyone. She spoke about the teapot needingto be full in order to pour tea out for others. Ileft therapy with homework. My homeworkwas to do three things over the weekend thatwould bring me joy. She could have asked meto murder someone and it would have beeneasier. I seriously couldn’t come up withanything. I gave up golf years ago because Ididn’t have four to five hours to be detachedfrom the world. This rationale is why I gaveup most things that I enjoyed: I was too busysolving others’ problems or being there forothers to be there for myself. I completed herhomework, but not until stressing about it allweekend. I ended up with a nice bath, RiceKrispy treats, and moving furniture around inmy house. I stumbled on to the big secret tojoy that weekend—it comes from the simplestof things. I am happy to say I can easily comeup with three things to do everyday to bringmyself joy.

Next, I learned how to prevent compassionfatigue with self-care. Honestly, I had no ideawhat that meant other than taking a bath andgetting my eyebrows done. Being an attorneyreally put me in a good place to help myselfhere. I started doing research and readingabout self-care. After a few years of managingthis, I can say that my self-care seems to be


I O L T A U P D A T E

Celebrating Pro Bono: Successful CollaborationSupports Employment through Social Enterprise

Pro Bono Week is an effort led by theAmerican Bar Association to recognize,recruit, and engage lawyers who positivelycontribute to the growing unmet legal needsin their communities by providing pro bonolegal services. Every day, committed lawyersprovide free legal services to individuals andorganizations that cannot afford an attorney.In celebration of Pro Bono Week, heldOctober 21-27, 2018, North CarolinaInterest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (NCIOLTA) recognizes the collaborations hap-pening across our state that make pro bonopossible.

As the charitable arm of the NorthCarolina State Bar, NC IOLTA administersgrants to civil legal aid organizations andadministration of justice initiativesstatewide. Since its creation in 1983, NCIOLTA has administered over $90 milliondollars to organizations that provide civillegal assistance for low-income individualswho lack the ability to pay an attorney toresolve legal issues relating to their basichuman needs. In 2016, with funds receivedby IOLTA through the Bank of America set-tlement, IOLTA made grants to fund com-munity economic redevelopment legal serv-ices projects. Each year, IOLTA also sup-ports volunteer lawyer programs that engageprivate attorneys as volunteers.

With a 40-year track record of pursuingjustice by providing legal assistance andadvocacy to help low-income people inwestern North Carolina meet their basicneeds and improve their lives, Pisgah LegalServices received dedicated funding fromIOLTA to enhance their already successfulcommunity redevelopment initiatives. Aspart of that project, Pisgah Legal Servicessupports the creation, expansion, and oper-ation of nonprofits engaged in communityredevelopment work in their six-countyservice area.

One such community partner is Green

Opportunities, a dynamic, innovative non-profit based in Asheville, whose mission is totrain, support, and connect people from mar-ginalized communities to sustainable employ-ment pathways. Green Opportunities offerstechnical training, life skills training, indus-try-recognized credentials, and personalizedsupport services to unemployed and under-employed residents of Asheville andBuncombe County. While their vision anduse of social enterprises, such as SouthsideKitchen Catering and Southside Woodworks,has led to a sustainable business structure tobenefit their nonprofit work, it also involvescomplicated legal issues including nonprofit,business, and tax law.

In creating their most recent social enter-prise, UpStaff Personnel, GreenOpportunities reached out to Pisgah LegalServices for advanced legal assistance. Withthe breadth of corporate legal expertiserequired to meet their needs, Pisgah LegalServices’ staff attorney, Justin Edge, andexecutive director, Jim Barrett, began reach-ing out to current pro bono volunteers andlaw firm partners.

Early in their IOLTA-funded communi-ty redevelopment project, Pisgah LegalServices’ attorneys had connected withSylvia Novinsky, the director of the NC ProBono Resource Center, which was launchedby the NC Equal Access to JusticeCommission in April 2016. The Pro BonoResource Center was formed to assistlawyers in fulfilling their professionalresponsibility under Rule of ProfessionalConduct 6.1 with the goal of ultimatelyincreasing pro bono participation statewide.Since its inception, the Center has launcheda website (ncprobono.org) with a list ofsearchable pro bono opportunities, collabo-rated with numerous bar associations andlegal services providers, worked with the NCSupreme Court to recognize attorneys whoreport 50 hours of pro bono legal services in

a given year, and offered trainings and otherresources to facilitate pro bono.

Sylvia and the NC Pro Bono ResourceCenter also frequently play the role ofmatchmaker, pairing interested lawyers andlaw firms seeking to contribute their skillstogether with legal services organizations andcommunity groups in search of quality, com-mitted volunteers.

Through its broad network of pro bonoattorneys, the Pro Bono Resource Centeridentified an eager pro bono team to workwith Green Opportunities: attorneys RanBell and Alyse Young of Womble BondDickinson (US) LLP. Ran Bell, of counsel atWomble Bond Dickinson, has worked withnonprofit organizations for 25 years, bring-ing detailed knowledge of formation, expan-sion, management, and dissolution of501(c)(3) charitable organizations and other


IOLTA Update

• Income received from participatingfinancial institutions that holdIOLTA accounts through August of2018 has increased by 34% comparedto 2017.• Specifically, interest income receivedin August of 2018 was 87% morethan that received in August of 2017.• The IOLTA Board of Trustees willreview 2019 grant applications andaward grants at the November grant-making meeting.• During the October 15 meeting ofthe IOLTA Board of Trustees, twogrants were approved for collaborativeprojects to serve victims of HurricaneFlorence. The two grant awards total$226,600.

WINTER 201830


Irecently had an opportunity totalk to Christon Halkiotis, aboard certified specialist in statecriminal law practicing in HighPoint. Christon, a native ofChapel Hill, graduat-

ed from Rutgers University in2000, where she majored in polit-ical science and minored in phi-losophy. She returned home andgraduated cum laude with a JDfrom the North Carolina CentralUniversity School of Law in2004. Christon’s favorite lawschool activities were serving asarticles editor of the Law Reviewduring her third year, as well asinterning in the Orange County DistrictAttorney’s Office with then-DA (now SeniorResident Superior Court Judge) Carl Foxand his wonderful assistants. She never wentout for any mock trial activities in school,since she was having way too much fun andlearning so much trying real cases in OrangeCounty District Court. Christon was hiredby the Guilford County District Attorney’sOffice shortly after passing the bar exam in2004. She has since prosecuted in districtcourt in Greensboro and High Point, juve-nile court in High Point, and since 2007 shehas been assigned to prosecute felonies insuperior court in High Point. She became aboard certified specialist in state criminallaw in 2014. Following are some of her com-ments about the specialization program andthe impact it has had on her career.Q: What were your early indicationstoward criminal law?

I knew I wanted to be a lawyer from anearly age, but I cannot remember one specif-ic day where I decided that criminal law waswhat I wanted to practice, although it alwaysgreatly interested me. By the time I finishedcollege, I knew I wanted to be a prosecutor,

and I specifically chose to attend a state lawschool so that my financial indebtednesswould not prevent me from seeking employ-ment as an assistant district attorney. Q: Why did you pursue board certification

with the State Bar? Early on in my career, I set

board certification as a personalgoal for myself to know that Ihad attained a benchmarkedlevel of professional expertise inmy practice area. After ten yearsof practicing criminal law exclu-sively, I decided it was time toapply to sit for the exam. Theyear I applied to take the exam(2014) was the first year that the

NC LEAF stipend to cover the applicationexpense for public service lawyers was avail-able. I was thankful for that help.Q: How has certification been helpful toyour career and to your work as an assistantdistrict attorney?

Certification allows me to bring credibil-ity to the table before people even meet me.Women are still underrepresented in superi-or court criminal litigation, and I feel thatcertification helps me be taken more serious-ly. I prosecute a large number of child sexcases, felony domestic violence cases, andhomicides, and it is nice to be able to tellvictims in my most serious cases that I haveattained a certification commensurate withthat of some of the best defense attorneys. Q: How does your certification benefit thecriminal justice process and the public?

Certification can inspire a great deal ofconfidence from the public. I believe that ifmore judges, assistant district attorneys,and assistant public defenders become cer-tified, that can help increase public confi-dence in the court system and the criminaljustice process as a whole. We all benefit asa society when ethical, experienced, and

excellent trial attorneys choose to work ascareer prosecutors and career defenders. Ifmore of them were certified, it could go along way toward helping the general publicrealize just how valuable these public ser-vants truly are.Q: Are there any hot topics in your special-ty area right now?

There are a number of hot topics in supe-rior court criminal litigation right now. Onein particular has come up multiple times forme over the past year. I am assigned all of thepetitions for removal from the sex offenderregistry in High Point, as well as the satellite-based monitoring reasonableness hearings.After the United States Supreme Court rul-ing in Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct.1368 (2015), which held that NorthCarolina’s satellite-based monitoring pro-gram is a search under the FourthAmendment, and therefore must be reason-able, we have seen multiple North Carolinaappellate court rulings in the last yearregarding satellite-based monitoring andhow it may or may not be reasonable asapplied to variously situated defendants. Q: What do lawyers who don’t handlecriminal cases need to know from a crimi-nal law specialist?

Any lawyer who doesn’t handle criminalcases should never go to court and try tohandle a criminal case. There is simply toomuch at stake for the defendant, even intraffic cases. If you don’t know a good crim-inal defense attorney to refer someone to,find a specialist on the list and make a refer-ral that way. Whenever someone asks me fora recommendation, and I don’t know any-one in the field in that part of the state, thespecialist list is always what I pass along tothem and suggest they pick someone who iscertified in that area. Q: How do you stay current in your field?

The additional CLE requirement for spe-

L E G A L S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N

Christon Halkiotis, Board Certified Specialist inState Criminal LawB Y D E N I S E E . M U L L E N , A S S I S T A N T D I R E C T O R F O R T H E B O A R D O F L E G A L S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N

Halkiotis

WINTER 201832

cialists certainly helps to ensure that I staycurrent on the law in my field. In addition,I subscribe to and read the School ofGovernment’s North Carolina Criminal Lawblog religiously, as well as the case lawupdate emails from the School ofGovernment. The North Carolina CriminalLaw blog was such a useful tool when I wasstudying for the specialization exam.Multiple essay questions had fact patternsthat came straight out of real NorthCarolina criminal appellate cases, which theblog had addressed with specific case analy-ses within the year leading up to the exam.Q: Do you work with any volunteer organ-izations or other groups, related to work oroutside of work, that you enjoy?

I am currently serving as the 2018-2019president of the Junior League ofGreensboro. I also volunteer, along with myPembroke Welsh Corgi, Orso, as a registeredpet therapy team with the Greensboro chap-ter of Alliance of Therapy Dogs. Q: How do you see the future of specializa-tion/board certification? What would yousay to encourage other lawyers to pursue

certification?I hope that eligible lawyers continue to

seek board certification, especially women,minorities, and public service attorneys.There is no reason not to pursue certifica-tion! As the six law schools in our state con-tinue to graduate new classes of attorneys topopulate our ranks, board certification is agreat way to make sure that you stand out assomeone who has reached the highest levelof professional expertise in your practicearea. Even though a large amount of study-ing is necessary, it will be beneficial sinceyou will review so much material in yourpractice area. The reviews I did of Chapters14, 15, 15A, 20, and 90 of the NC GeneralStatutes during my exam preparation wereworth their weight in gold to me in myeveryday practice. For public service lawyers,remember that the NC LEAF stipend isavailable to cover the application expenseand apply for that early! n

For more information on how to becomecertified, visit our website at nclawspecialists.gov.

IOLTA Update (cont.)tax exempt entities. Alyse Young, associateand member of the firm’s Pro BonoCommittee, focuses her practice on trans-actional and corporate matters, includingacquisitions, divestitures, mergers, corpo-rate reorganizations, and general corporategovernance matters.

“The Pro Bono Resource Center is hon-ored to play a role in bringing together pri-vate attorneys with unmet legal needs. Thisparticular collaboration truly highlights theimportance and value of that collabora-tion,” says Sylvia.

With a pro bono team assembled, PisgahLegal Services was able to expand resourcesavailable to Green Opportunities. “Ranand I enjoyed collaborating with JustinEdge and working with the GreenOpportunities and UpStaff Personnel teamto accomplish their goals,” says Alyse.“Justin was an invaluable partner in theprocess, providing critical guidance andknowledge regarding GreenOpportunities.”

Each partner of the collaboration

focused on their areas of expertise. BetweenJustin’s relationship and in-depth knowl-edge of Green Opportunities, and Alyseand Ran’s extensive experience in corpo-rate, nonprofit, and social entrepreneurshipissues, the team found a favorable businessstructure that would not adversely affectGreen Opportunities’ non-profit tax-exempt status and would still allow for thesocial enterprise to provide a holisticapproach to community and employmentimpact in Asheville.

UpStaff Personnel is now a thrivingsocial enterprise, which provides motivatedjob seekers with a pathway to career-trackemployment, while offering Asheville-areaemployers a screened, dependable, anddiverse workforce.

NC IOLTA is proud to help support thelegal aid community and remains thankfulto attorneys around the state who fulfilltheir professional responsibility of provid-ing pro bono legal services to enhance thelives of those with the most need.

To learn more about how to getinvolved with pro bono opportunities inNorth Carolina, visit ncprobono.org. n


In my two years and threemonths on the superior courtbench, I have been unpleasantlysurprised by the frequency withwhich practicing attorneysattempt to engage in ex parte

communications with the court. And evenwhere the communications aren’t techni-cally ex parte, I despair that attorneys fail tograsp the rules regarding informal commu-nications with presiding judges.

As a result, I teamed with Wake ForestUniversity Law Professor Ellen Murphy to,hopefully, shed some practical light on therules as they relate to this subject.

Situation No. 1: It’s the week before a motion hearing in

state superior court that will have impor-tant consequences to your civil case. Basedon your previous experience with thejudge, you believe providing a memoran-dum of law would both help the judgemore efficiently understand the issue andimprove your chances of success. You havedutifully researched the law and have pre-pared the brief. You would like to email acopy of the relevant motion and yourmemo to the judge with a request that, tothe extent the judge’s busy schedule per-mits, he/she review the materials prior tothe hearing. May you do so?

Ex Parte Communications areProhibited Except in (Very) LimitedCircumstances

North Carolina Rule 3.5(a), revised inApril 2018, prohibits ex parte communica-tions about a matter with the presidingjudge or official. While the Rule seemsclear on its face, in our experience, the gen-eral prohibition against ex parte communi-cations with a presiding judge is poorlyunderstood and frequently disregarded.Rule 3.5(d) defines ex parte communica-tion as “a communication on behalf of a

party to a matter pending before a tribunalthat occurs (1) in the absence of an oppos-ing party, (2) without notice to that party,and (3) outside the record.” If each of thesethree factors is present, the communicationis considered ex parte.

The policy behind the prohibition isstraightforward: “[a]ll litigants and lawyersshould have access to tribunals on an equalbasis.” Comment [8] to Rule 3.5. When alawyer communicates with a presidingjudge about a pending1 matter, it “mighthave the effect or give the appearance ofgranting undue advantage to one party”over another. Id. (Emphasis added.)

Comment [8] to Rule 3.5 providesadditional guidance:

A lawyer should not communicatewith a tribunal by a writing unless acopy thereof is promptly delivered toopposing counsel or to the adverseparty if unrepresented.

Neither the Rule nor its commentsdefine “promptly.” However, simultaneousdelivery (if not delivery to opposing coun-sel in advance of delivery to a judge) isoptimal. In any event, and on a “worstcase” basis, opposing counsel and partiesshould receive the communication withsufficient time to respond.

Lawyers are not alone in their duty toavoid ex parte communications. The Codeof Judicial Conduct provides guidance tojudges as well. Canon 3 A.(4) states that“[a] judge should accord to every personwho is legally interested in aproceeding...full right to be heard accord-ing to law, and, except as authorized by law,neither knowingly initiate nor knowinglyconsider ex parte or other communicationsconcerning a pending proceeding.”

Most simply, with respect to ex partecommunications, the prohibition is prettystraightforward—lawyers shouldn’t do itand judges shouldn’t allow it. Therefore,with reference to Situation No. 1, you

should not send your memo withoutsimultaneously copying the other side.

Situation No. 2:Having decided you couldn’t properly

send your memo, you attend the hearing,during which opposing counsel argues factsand law that you believe are inaccurate. Youdidn’t think to say so at the time, but fol-lowing the hearing, you decide it would aidthe court in making its decision if you senta letter to the judge. The purposes of theletter are to point out opposing counsel’smisrepresentations and to provide deposi-tion testimony and case law illustrating thetrue state of the facts and the relevant legalprecedents. May you do so?

Informal Communications with theCourt

Often, counsel for all sides of a litigatedmatter agree that communication with thepresiding judge is necessary, or at a mini-mum advisable. Additionally, when a judgehas a disputed motion under advisement,one or more parties may want to bringinformation to the court’s attentionbecause counsel believes there are thingsthe judge should know before ruling. Thisis often accomplished by a letter deliveredto the judge’s chambers or, more frequentlytoday, by email.

Some judges worry about the potentialonslaught of “informal” communicationsby email or letter outside of formal pro-ceedings in the case, and the inability ofopposing parties to adequately respond.Some of these same jurists believe thatinformal communications about a disputedissue are improper. They are not withoutsupport for their position.

First, Rule 7 of the North CarolinaRules of Civil Procedure sets forth thatonly certain pleadings and motions are per-mitted to be filed in a civil proceeding.

Second, 98 Formal Ethics Opinion 13,

Talking to the Judge (or Maybe Not)B Y J U D G E M I C H A E L L . R O B I N S O N A N D E L L E N M U R P H Y

L E G A L E T H I C S

WINTER 201834

Written Communications with a Judge orJudicial Official, prohibits informal com-munications with the court except in limit-ed circumstances.

This formal ethics opinion provides that“to avoid the appearance of improper influ-ence upon a tribunal, informal writtencommunication with a judge or other judi-cial office should be limited to”:

1) Communications permitted by lawor the rules or written procedures of thetribunal;2) Written communications…preparedpursuant to the court's instructions;3) Written communications relative toemergencies, changed circumstances, orscheduling matters….; and4) Written communications sent to thetribunal with the consent of the oppos-ing lawyer or opposing party if unrepre-sented.With respect to exception number 1,

some courts have enacted “local” rules ofthe court to permit informal communica-tions about disputed matters.2

In many case management ordersentered in the business court, words similarto the following are included:

The court will actively monitor theprogress of the case through the casemanagement procedures set forth in theBCR and this Order. To do so efficiently,the court and the parties may utilize themedium of email for some matters where aformal motion or other filing may not beefficient, including, for example, schedul-ing and BCR 10.9(b) disputes. Any suchemail communication remains subjectto Rule 3.5 of the North Carolina Rulesof Professional Conduct and BCR 6.4,which requires all such communicationsto be copied to all counsel of record andall unrepresented parties. Unlessresponding to a court inquiry, the courtanticipates that the parties will endeav-or, wherever possible, to communicatewith the court by email only after priornotice to each other, and the communi-cating party shall, where appropriate,reflect in their communication with thecourt the position of all other partiesconcerning the matter at issue.(Emphasis added.)Pursuant to Business Court Rule 10.9, a

party may not file a motion to compel dis-covery without first emailing the court,describing the dispute in question, and

seeking permission to file a discoverymotion. Opposing counsel is provided anopportunity to respond, again expressly byutilizing email. Each of these communica-tions must be simultaneously copied to allcounsel of record and unrepresented par-ties.

Absent a local rule permitting informalcommunication with the court, the onlyway for a lawyer to communicate with thejudge off the record is: (1) at the court’sdirection, (2) with consent of all othercounsel, or (3) as a result of and relating toan emergency.

As a practical matter, an attorney whohas a good relationship with opposingcounsel likely can get consent to submit-ting supplemental information following ahearing. If this is not possible, and there isnot a true emergency necessitating thecommunications, the attorney mustattempt to obtain court authorization.

How does a lawyer get the court’s per-mission to send an informal communica-tion? There are several potential ways. First,consider asking for permission during thehearing. If you think there may be merit tosupplemental briefing, give the court (andopposing counsel) notice during your argu-ment and ask whether the court would likeand permit supplemental briefing. Mostjudges I know want badly to make a correctdecision on the law and the facts, andtherefore welcome supplemental briefing.

Second, most judicial districts have localprocedural rules about calendaring ofmotions and trial, and more technical/pro-cedural issues. Consider contacting theleaders of your local bar and the senior res-ident judge of your judicial district seekingan amendment of these local rules to per-mit informal communications with the

court in appropriate circumstances.

A Final Note—Reconsideration of 98FEO 13

The North Carolina State Bar Councilis considering the continuing advisabilityof 98 FEO 13 following the revision ofRule 3.5 of the Rules of ProfessionalConduct. If you have thoughts about theethics opinion and how it might beimproved, you are encouraged to reach outto the State Bar or to your local State Barcouncilor. n

Michael L. Robinson, a special superiorcourt judge for complex business cases, is for-mer chair of the Ethics Committee of theNorth Carolina State Bar. Professor EllenMurphy is assistant dean of instructionaltechnologies and design at Wake ForestUniversity Law School and teaches profession-al responsibility.

Endnotes1. A matter is “pending” before a particular tribunal

when that tribunal has been selected to determinethe matter or when it is reasonably foreseeable thatthe tribunal will be so selected. Rule 3.5(d)(2).

2. In the North Carolina Business Court where Iwork, for example, communication by email is notonly an indispensable part of the court’s operation,use of email as a mode of communication by partieswith the court is expressly incorporated into, and inat least one instance mandated by, the BusinessCourt Rules (“BCR”). BCR 10.9(b)(1) provides:“Before a party files a motion related to discovery,the party must initiate a telephone conferenceamong counsel and the presiding business courtjudge about the dispute. To initiate this conference,a party must email a summary of the dispute to thejudicial assistant and law clerk for the presidingbusiness court judge and to opposing counsel....Anyother party may submit a response to the summa-ry...and must be emailed to the judicial assistantand opposing counsel....”


Below are the 2019 dates of the quarterly State Bar Council meetings.

January 15-18 NC State Bar Headquarters, Raleigh

April 23-26 NC State Bar Headquarters, Raleigh

July 16-17 Chetola Resort, Blowing Rock

October 22-25 NC State Bar Headquarters, Raleigh

(Election of officers on October 24, 2019, at 11:45 am)

2019 Meeting Schedule

The failure to perform three-way recon-ciliation of the general trust account is one ofthe more common violations found duringthe random audit process. It seems this ethi-cal duty is dreaded even by those lawyers

who regularly perform it in accord with therequirements of the Rules of ProfessionalConduct. Interestingly, of the attorneyswhose trust accounts were audited this pastquarter more failed to perform quarterly ran-dom transaction reviews than failed to per-form three-way trust account reconciliation,suggesting that there may be a level of dreadbuilding around the quarterly transactionreview process as well. As a trial lawyer, I havefound that I am most effective when I ampassionate about the cause. Here, I make thecase for both the three-way reconciliationand the quarterly random transaction review.This case is easy for me to make because Ibelieve in these processes and the value theybring. Performing these procedures yieldsgood results for the public, the profession,and clients. Also, dutiful and regular three-way reconciliation of the general trustaccount and quarterly random transactionreview of all trust and fiduciary accounts isgood for lawyers.

1. Ethical Duty – Good for the Publicand the Profession

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15-3(d)(1) requires lawyers to reconcile quarterlythe balance of the general trust account asshown on the following records: the generalledger, total of individual client/subsidiaryledgers with a positive balance, and the bankstatement (adjusted after accounting for out-standing checks and outstanding deposits).Rule 1.15-3(i) requires lawyers to reviewquarterly the statement of costs and receipts,client ledger, and canceled checks for a ran-dom sample of transactions in the trustaccount (minimum of three), to verify thatthe disbursements were properly made andthat no transactions were payable to cash.The Rules of Professional Conduct affirm forlawyers and declare to the public how seri-ously we take our professional responsibili-ties. A thoughtful reading of the Rules of

Professional Conduct shows that lawyers rec-ognize that we receive many things in trust:information, funds, and non-monetary prop-erty. Rule 1.15 and its subparts communicatethat when lawyers receive funds in trust, wewill be vigilant in our maintenance and safe-guarding of such funds. As a self-regulatingprofession, recognition of this fact is impor-tant to maintaining the public trust and tomaintaining integrity as a profession. Thus,the ethical duty to perform the requisite rec-onciliations and reviews is good for the pub-lic because it conveys to the public that whenwe receive their funds in trust, we do not takethe grant of this trust lightly. Also, this rule isgood for the profession as a constantreminder of the significance of such trust.

2. Practice Makes Proficient andEfficient – Good for Clients

Another reason to regularly performthree-way trust account reconciliation andquarterly random transaction reviews is that,like most things in life, the more you do it themore effortless it becomes. For a busy lawyer,sitting down quarterly (or more often) toreview and analyze trust account records andthe data needed to perform the required rec-onciliations and reviews can seem onerousand tedious. While as trust account compli-ance counsel I do not maintain a trustaccount that requires me to perform reconcil-iations and random transaction reviews, Ireview a LOT of both for the trust accountsof others, so I understand very well the timeand effort required to carry out this charge. Idiscovered that with more frequent perform-ance of these tasks, I became more adept atthe process. Also, through discussions withlawyers who regularly (monthly as opposedto quarterly) perform the required reconcilia-tions and reviews, I found that they alsoreport increased efficiency, and thus, animprovement in the level of ease required tocomplete these exercises. Improved efficiency

T R U S T A C C O U N T I N G

Dollars and Sense—Making the Case for Three-WayReconciliation and Quarterly Transaction ReviewB Y L E A N O R B A I L E Y H O D G E , T R U S T A C C O U N T C O M P L I A N C E C O U N S E L

Escrow Consulting& Accounting, LLC

Protecting Your Trust Accounts

Are Your Trust Accounts in Accordance with Rule 1.15?

Protecting your business by...

Dawn Cash-Salau252.531.4241

TrustComplianceNC.comOver 20 years of professional accounting experience

Protecting your business bye with Rule 1.15?dancorccA

ounccrust ATour Ye rA

...byy.e with Rule 1.15?

ts in oun

WINTER 201836

in the processes designed to help safeguardentrusted funds is good for clients because itensures that their funds remain protected.Additionally, a collateral benefit to the clientof an efficient trust account manager isincreased time and energy to focus on thesubstance of the representation.

3. Peace of Mind – Good for LawyersThere are risks associated with maintain-

ing one or more trust accounts, and thoserisks can be a source of anxiety for lawyers.Those risks include employee embezzlementand fraud. History has shown that trustedstaff upon whom lawyers rely to help manageand maintain entrusted funds may insteadhelp themselves to money in the trustaccount. In many instances, this embezzle-ment could have been detected if the lawyerhad regularly performed three-way reconcili-ation of the trust account and quarterly ran-dom transaction reviews in accordance withthe applicable rules. The same is true regard-ing the discovery of fraud. Increasingly,lawyers’ trust accounts have been targeted byexternal actors perpetrating fraud. In somecases, the fraud is promptly discovered whena rightful recipient of a large sum of money

does not receive payment because a scammerwas successful in getting the lawyer to dis-burse the funds to the thief and not the trueowner. However, in other cases, the fraud ismore passive and ongoing in the form ofspoofed trust account checks for smallamounts that can go undetected unless thelawyer regularly performs the prescribed rec-onciliations and reviews.

Another source of anxiety for lawyers isthe random audit. Anyone who has ever beenthe subject of a random audit knows theangst that typically accompanies the newsthat you will be audited. While nothing canentirely alleviate this stress, knowing that thetrust account is properly maintained andholds the funds you are required to keep intrust for your clients can certainly help mini-mize any anxiety. I have a friend who is fondof saying, “If your house is clean, you don’tmind company.” This is true of reconciliationand review as pertains to a random audit—when routinely performed, three-way recon-ciliation and quarterly random transactionreview make the prospect of a random auditless of a concern. For lawyers, peace of mindcan be that elusive holy grail. Performing

three-way reconciliation and quarterly ran-dom transaction reviews can support peace ofmind, at least as it relates to trust accountmanagement, thereby moving lawyers onestep closer to that seemingly impossible aim.I can think of many reasons why peace ofmind is a good thing for lawyers, but I can-not conceive of even one reason why it is not.

There you have it. The case is closed; myargument is finished. I hope I have persuadedyou, even if you dread the tasks, that regularthree-way reconciliation of the general trustaccount and quarterly random transactionreview of all trust and fiduciary accounts aregood things worthy of the routine commit-ment of your time and attention. Such acommitment is our ethical duty, and regularcompletion of these acts can increase profi-ciency and efficiency in the execution of thesetasks. Also, regular (at least quarterly) three-way reconciliation of the general trustaccount and quarterly random transactionreview of all trust and fiduciary accounts canhelp foster lawyer peace of mind. Promotionof lawyer peace of mind is good for you, goodfor the public, good for the profession, andgood for your clients. n

LAP (cont.)

balancing the joys of a 12- year old with theobligations of a 40+ year old. Sleep is first andforemost. I discovered that if I want goodsleep, then I need a schedule for sleep, muchlike my morning schedule to get ready for mywaking hours. No matter how good of aparent, attorney, caregiver, or friend that I canbe, if I have eight to ten hours of sleep then Ican be 500 times better. Second, I deserve justas much love and kindness as everyone else. Ibuy myself flowers. I skip work on Fridayafternoons to watch Star Wars and Marvelmovies. I really try to connect with the thingsthat I enjoy. I have found that meditation andmindfulness greatly help me connect tofinding those things that bring me joy andunderstanding the things that impede my joy.Lastly, practicing meditation and mindfulnesshelps me let go of a lot of useless thoughtsand worry.

My new self-care regimen also meant a bigchange at work. I needed to set up andmaintain good boundaries with clients. I don’tgive my cell phone number to clients

anymore. I don’t email with my clients on theweekend, and they know upfront to neverexpect a response from me on the weekend.My clients need to be more invested in theircase than I am, and they also need to havegood self-care. I have advised lots of clients toseek therapy because I recognize their mentalhealth issues or poor self-care. It makes somuch sense because poor self-care can lead tonumerous marital issues, thereby leading themto my office. Being more present to my needshas put me in a good place to give my clientsreally good advice for their lives and inevitablytheir cases.

I still really enjoy fixing other’s problems,but I really enjoy working on my own, too.For years I have heard the remarks aboutattorneys fixing others’ problems andneglecting their own. While that may be true,I also believe that attorneys have a very goodskill set for solving problems, even when thoseproblems are their own. As I look back I haveenjoyed my learning experience and am sograteful for where I am today. I still want tosolve others’ problems, especially in the formof sharing my experience to help peers who

may be suffering from compassion fatigue. Iam now a LAP volunteer and have shared thisstory at CLE events. It has been cathartic forme. So many lawyers have told me they relateto my story. It is not so hard sharing now. Nothard at all.

If you think my story sounds even remotelyclose to what you are going through, pleaselook at the LAP website under “compassionfatigue” for some wonderful info and adviceand call LAP. Hindsight being 20/20, if I hadlooked at that website earlier, then I could haveprevented about a year of my suffering andstarted on the road to recovery sooner. n

The North Carolina Lawyer AssistanceProgram is a confidential program of assistancefor all North Carolina lawyers, judges, and lawstudents, which helps address problems of stress,depression, alcoholism, addiction, or otherproblems that may impair a lawyer’s ability topractice. If you would like more information, goto nclap.org or call: Cathy Killian (western areasof the state) at 704-910-2310, or NicoleEllington (for eastern areas of the state) at 919-719-9267.


Council ActionsAt its meeting on October 25, 2018, the

Ethics Committee voted to send Proposed2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, AccessingSocial Network Presence of Represented orUnrepresented Persons, to the State BarCouncil for adoption. However, at itsmeeting on October 26, 2018, the councilvoted not to adopt Proposed 2018 FormalEthics Opinion 5. The inquiry will bereconsidered by the Ethics Committee atits next regularly scheduled meeting inJanuary 2019. Additionally, at its October26 meeting, the State Bar Council adoptedthe ethics opinion summarized below:

2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 7Online Review Solicitation ServiceOpinion explains that, subject to certain

conditions, a lawyer may participate in anonline service for soliciting client reviewsthat collects and posts positive reviews to

increase the lawyer’s ranking on internetsearch engines.

Ethics Committee ActionsAt its meeting on October 25, 2018, the

Ethics Committee sent Proposed 2018Formal Ethics Opinion 8, AdvertisingMembership in Marketing Company withMisleading Title, back to subcommittee forfurther study based upon commentsreceived about the proposed opinion dur-ing the prior quarter. The committee alsoreceived reports from two subcommitteescreated to study inquiries concerning exparte communications and concerningBitcoin and other cryptocurrency. Lastly,the committee received three newinquiries: one concerning ERISA plans,one concerning a lawyer’s ability to act asan intermediary between amicable butopposing parties in a domestic dispute, and

one concerning intimate relationshipsbetween opposing counsel. All threeinquiries were sent to subcommittee forfurther study. n

P R O P O S E D O P I N I O N S

Council Rejects Proposed Ethics Opinion on AccessingSocial Network Presence of Represented orUnrepresented Persons

Public Information The Ethics Committee’s meetings are

public, and materials submitted for con-sideration are generally NOT held inconfidence. Persons submitting requestsfor advice are cautioned that inquiriesshould not disclose client confidences orsensitive information that is not neces-sary to the resolution of the ethical ques-tions presented.

Pathways to Wellbeing (cont.)my team?” Not every school of fish is readyto change the water in the tank all at once—some may do better filtering in new ideas alittle bit at a time. If that is the case, you maytry handing this or another mindfulness ar-ticle out to your team and having a discussionabout it. On the other hand, if your firm isready to take up the mindfulness mantle, getready to swim in a whole new ocean of pro-ductivity and possibility.

* * * * *

If you would like to connect with otherlawyers who are interested in lawyer wellbeingand learn how to raise your resilience to stress

using mindfulness, join Laura for these up-coming offerings:

12/14/18: “Cultivating Collegiality withMindful Connections,” NCBA PromotingCivility and Sanity in Your Practice, Cary(co-sponsored by NCLAP, gateway.ncbar.org/store/seminar/seminar.php?seminar=130890)

12/14/18: “Mindfulness and Neuro-science for Building Resilience to Stress,” Mc-Dowell Co. Judicial District CLE, Marion(co-sponsored by NCLAP)

1/10; 1/17; 1/24; 1/31: “Mindfulness forLawyers: Building Resilience to Stress UsingMindfulness, Meditation, and Neuroscience”(four week online CLE course, consciousle-galminds.com/register) n

©2018. Published in Law Practice Today,

August 2018, by the American Bar Association.Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.This information or any portion thereof maynot be copied or disseminated in any form or byany means or stored in an electronic databaseor retrieval system without the express writtenconsent of the American Bar Association or thecopyright holder.

Laura Mahr is a NC lawyer and thefounder of Conscious Legal Minds LLC, pro-viding mindfulness-based coaching, training,and consulting for attorneys and law officesnationwide. Her work is informed by 11 yearsof practice as a civil sexual assault attorneyand 25 years as a student and teacher of mind-fulness and yoga, and a love of neuroscience.Find out more about Laura’s work at con-sciouslegalminds.com.

WINTER 201838

At a conference on September 20, 2018,the North Carolina Supreme Court approvedthe following amendments to the rules ofthe North Carolina State Bar:

Amendments to the Rules onElection, Succession, and Duties ofOfficers

27 N.C.A.C. 1A, Section .0400, Organ-ization of the North Carolina State Bar

Replacing a less comprehensive rule, anew rule specifies what occurs when any ofthe State Bar’s officers become temporarilyunable to perform the duties of office.

Amendments to the State BarCouncil’s Rulemaking Procedures

27 N.C.A.C. 1A, Section .1400, Rule-making Procedures

Amendments to Rule .1401 allow pro-posed amendments to be published for com-ment in a digital version of the Journal, theState Bar’s official publication. Amendmentsto Rule .1403 specify when a proposed ruleamendment or proposed rule takes effect.

Amendments to the Requirementsfor Reinstatement from InactiveStatus and AdministrativeSuspension

27 N.C.A.C. 1D, Section .0900, Proce-dures for Administrative Committee

The amendments require a lawyer peti-tioning for reinstatement to complete themandatory CLE hours for the year in whichthe lawyer went inactive or was administra-tively suspended if inactive or suspended sta-tus was ordered on or after July 1.

Amendments to the Annual CLERequirements

27 N.C.A.C. 1D, Section .1500, RulesGoverning the Administration of the Con-tinuing Legal Education Program; and Sec-tion .1600, Regulations Governing the Ad-ministration of the Continuing LegalEducation Program

The amendments provide a definition of

“technology training” and mandate that oneof the 12 hours of approved CLE requiredannually must be devoted to technologytraining.

Amendments to the RulesGoverning the Administration of theContinuing Legal EducationProgram

27 N.C.A.C. 1D, Section .1500, RulesGoverning the Administration of the Con-tinuing Legal Education Program

Amendments to Rule .1522 specify thatmembers may file their annual report formsonline and, in lieu of mailing the forms, al-low the State Bar to email a notice to mem-bers advising them that forms are posted tothe members’ online records.

Amendments to the CertificationStandards for the Elder LawSpecialty

27 N.C.A.C. 1D, Section .2900, Certi-fication Standards for the Elder Law Spe-cialty

The amendments clarify what constituteselder law CLE for the purpose of satisfyingthe CLE standards for certification and forcontinued certification.

Amendments to Rules for theParalegal Certification Program

27 N.C.A.C. 1G, Section .0100, ThePlan for Certification of Paralegals

Amendments to The Plan for Certifica-tion of Paralegals allow an additional one-year term for service as the chair of the certi-fication committee and establish a vice-chairposition for the committee. Other amend-ments eliminate the rights of an applicant toreview a failed examination and to request areview by the board of a failed examination.

Amendments to the RulesGoverning the Admission to thePractice of Law in North Carolina

NC Board of Law Examiners, Section.0500, Requirements for Applicants; Section

.0600, Moral Character and General Fitness;and Section .1200, Board Hearings

Amendments to the rules of the Board ofLaw Examiners provide a time period withinwhich a general applicant is required to suc-cessfully complete the state-specific compo-nent of the Uniform Bar Examination andrequire transfer applicants as well as generalapplicants to appear before bar candidatecommittees.

Highlights• NC Supreme Court approves ruleamendments mandating that one ofthe 12 hours of approved CLE re-quired annually must be devoted totechnology training. • Supreme Court also approves emer-gency rule amendment to allowlawyers licensed in another state toprovide pro bono services to victimsof Hurricane Florence for a temporaryperiod.• No new rule amendments proposedthis quarter.

Preorder

the 2019

Lawyer’s

Handbook

You can order a hard copy bysubmitting an order form (found on

the State Bar’s website atbit.ly/2SGJaGU) by March 22, 2019.

The digital version will still be availablefor download and is free of charge.

The 2018Lawyer’s Handbook

Administrative Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Continuing Legal Education (CLE) . . . . . . .522Discipline and Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Fee Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59IOLTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .516Legal Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .532Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Paralegal Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Professional Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Ethics Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Index to Ethics Opinions . . . . . . . . . . .10285Gen. Stat. Chapter 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11IOLTA Q&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111Rules of Professional Conduct . . . . . . .91Rules Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .981

The North Carolina State Bar Lawyer’sHandbook 2018 (Abridged)An official publication of the North Carolina State Bar

containing the most frequently referenced rules of the

North Carolina State Bar, annotated Rules of Professional

Conduct, all ethics opinions adopted under the Rules and

Superseded (1985) Rules, and trust account guidelines.

N O RT H C A RO L I NASTATE BAR

R U L E A M E N D M E N T S

Amendments Approved by the Supreme Court


27 N.C.A.C. Chapter ID, Section .0900,Procedures for Administrative Committee

At a conference on October 2, 2018, theNorth Carolina Supreme Court approved anamendment to Rule .0905 in 27 N.C. Admin.Code Chapter 1D. This rule permits a lawyerwho is licensed in another state to providepro bono representation to indigent personsunder the supervision of a North Carolinalawyer employed by a nonprofit corporationqualified to render legal series pursuant toN.C. Gen. Stat. §84-5.1. Under the existingrule, the lawyer’s petition to act in this capacityis approved by the State Bar Council at aquarterly meeting of the council. The nextquarterly meeting of the council was notscheduled until more than a month after Hur-ricane Florence’s devastation of many NorthCarolina counties. In light of the dire needfor lawyers to assist with legal problems arisingfrom the hurricane, the State Bar submittedan emergency petition to the Supreme Courtasking the Court to approve an amendmentto Rule .0905 to permit lawyers licensed inother states, but not in North Carolina, totemporarily register with the State Bar andbegin immediately providing pro bono legalservices to indigent residents of North Car-olina who are victims of Hurricane Florence.Due to the need for haste, the proposed ruleamendment was not published for commentprior to adoption. Permission to practice lawin North Carolina under registration proce-dure authorized by the rule amendment ter-minates on January 16, 2019.

Rule .0905 Pro Bono Practice by Out ofState Lawyers

(a) A lawyer licensed to practice in an-

other state but not North Carolina who de-sires to provide legal services free of chargeto indigent persons may file a petition withthe secretary addressed to the council settingforth:

(1) The petitioner's name and address;…(h) Emergency Rule Permitting Tem-

porary Pro Bono Practice by Lawyers notLicensed in North Carolina. A lawyer li-censed to practice in another state but notin North Carolina who desires to providelegal services free of charge to indigent vic-tims of Hurricane Florence under the su-pervision of a member employed by a non-profit corporation qualified to render legalservices pursuant to G.S. 84-5.1 may doso notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through(g) of this rule under the following condi-tions:

(1) The lawyer's practice of law inNorth Carolina under Rule .0905(h) islimited to pro bono assistance of indi-gent victims of Hurricane Florence andmust be rendered under the supervisionof a member employed by a nonprofitcorporation qualified to render legalservices pursuant to G.S. 84-5.1.(2) The lawyer must file with the NorthCarolina State Bar the Registration forTemporary Pro Bono Practice of NorthCarolina Law form containing:

(i) the lawyer’s mailing address, tele-phone number, and email address; (ii) identification of all jurisdictionsin which the lawyer is licensed to prac-tice law, dates of licensure and licensenumber(s);(iii) a statement that the lawyer is in

good standing with the entity thatgoverns the practice of law in each ju-risdiction where the lawyer is licensedto practice law;(iv) a statement that the lawyer’s li-cense to practice law has not been re-voked or suspended in any jurisdictionin which the lawyer has ever been li-censed to practice law; (v) a statement that the lawyer agreesto abide by the North Carolina Rulesof Professional Conduct and submitsto the disciplinary jurisdiction of thecourts of North Carolina and of theNorth Carolina State Bar in regard toany acts or omissions of the lawyer re-lated to the practice of law in NorthCarolina; (vi) a statement that the lawyer willonly engage in the limited pro bonopractice of law authorized by thisemergency rule; and(vii) a certification that all informationcontained on the form is true andcomplete.

(3) Permission to practice law in NorthCarolina under Rule .0905(h) termi-nates on January 16, 2019. A lawyerpracticing law under Rule .0905(h) whodesires to continue to provide pro bonoservices after January 16, 2019 mustsubmit a petition to the State Bar Coun-cil pursuant to paragraphs (a) through(g) of this rule on or before January 4,2019 in order for the petition to be con-sidered by the Administrative Commit-tee of the State Bar at the January meet-ing of the State Bar Council.

Emergency Rule Amendment Approved by theSupreme Court

Amendments Pending Approval by the Supreme CourtAt its meeting on October 26, 2018, the

council of the North Carolina State Bar votedto adopt the following rule amendments for

transmission to the North Carolina SupremeCourt for approval. (For the complete textof the proposed rule amendments, see the

Fall 2018 edition of the Journal or visit theState Bar website: www.ncbar.gov.)

WINTER 201840

Proposed Amendments to the Ruleson Discipline and Disability ofAttorneys

27 N.C.A.C. 1B, Section .0100, Disci-pline and Disability of Attorneys

Proposed amendments to Rule .0113 es-tablish a procedure for imposition of cen-sures that is consistent with the proceduresfor imposition of reprimands and admoni-tions. Proposed new Rule .0135 establishesa procedure to suspend the license of a li-censee who is not in compliance with de-

mands of the Grievance Committee for in-formation or evidence relating to a grievanceinvestigation.

Proposed Amendments to theMinimum Standards for ContinuedCertification of Specialists and tothe Recertification Standards for AllSpecialties

27 N.C.A.C. 1D, Section .1700, ThePlan for Legal Specialization; Section .2100,Certification Standards for the Real Property

Law Specialty; Section .2200, CertificationStandards for the Bankruptcy Law Specialty;Section .2300, Certification Standards forthe Estate Planning and Probate Law Spe-cialty; Section .2400, Certification Standardsfor the Family Law Specialty; Section .2500,Certification Standards for the CriminalLaw Specialty; Section .2600, CertificationStandards for the Immigration Law Spe-cialty; Section .2700, Certification Standardsfor the Workers’ Compensation Law Spe-cialty; Section .2800, Certification Standardsfor the Social Security Disability Law Spe-cialty; Section .2900, Certification Standardsfor the Elder Law Specialty; Section .3000,Certification Standards for the AppellatePractice Specialty; Section .3100, Certifica-tion Standards for the Trademark Law Spe-cialty; Section .3200, Certification Standardsfor the Utilities Law Specialty; and Section.3300, Certification Standards for the Pri-vacy and Information Security Law Spe-cialty

The proposed amendments reduce thenumber of peer references required for re-certification as a specialist from ten to sixfor all specialties.

Proposed Amendments to the Rulesof Professional Conduct

27 NCAC 2, Rule 1.15, SafekeepingProperty; Rule 3.5, Impartiality and Deco-rum of the Tribunal; and Rule 5.4, Profes-sional Independence of Lawyer

The proposed amendments to the officialcomment to Rule 1.15 explain the due dili-gence required if a lawyer uses an interme-diary (such as a bank, credit card processor,or litigation funding entity) to collect a fee.The proposed amendments to Rule 3.5 cor-rect a typographical error included in anamendment to the Rules of ProfessionalConduct approved by the North CarolinaSupreme Court on April 5, 2018. They alsorevise the official comment to specify thatgifts or loans to judges are only prohibitedif made under circumstances that might givethe appearance that the gift or loan wasmade to influence official action. The pro-posed amendments to Rule 5.4 add an ex-ception to the prohibition on fee sharingwith a nonlawyer which would allow alawyer to pay a portion of a legal fee to cer-tain third parties if the amount paid is foradministrative or marketing services andthere is no interference with the lawyer’s in-dependent professional judgment. n

In Memoriam

Thomas Johnson Ashcraft Charlotte, NC

Martin Douglass Bellis Washington, DC

Freda Bowman Black Durham, NC

John Maclachlan Boxley Raleigh, NC

Joseph Edmiston Bruner Randleman, NC

Frederick A. Burke Raleigh, NC

Stephen Gray Calaway Winston-Salem, NC

Deborah Alice Casey Boone, NC

Leroy R. Castle Durham, NC

James Joseph Coman Raleigh, NC

Stacy Clyde Eggers Jr. Boone, NC

William Harrell Everett Jr. Goldsboro, NC

James E. Floors Smithfield, NC

Joseph Duane Gilliam Fayetteville, NC

James Taylor Hedrick Durham, NC

Scarlett VanStory Levinson Raleigh, NC

William Frank Maready Winston-Salem, NC

Rhonda Register Moorefield Asheville, NC

John August Mraz Asheville, NC

Frederick Clay Ernest Murray Reidsville, NC

Charles Johnson Nooe Eden, NC

Laura S. Pocock Rutherfordton, NC

William Edward Poe Jr. Charlotte, NC

Diane Martin Pomper Raleigh, NC

Michael B. Pross Salisbury, NC

Larry Truman Reida Waynesville, NC

Richard Von Biberstein Jr. Burgaw, NC

Christopher Allen White Charlotte, NC

Samuel Cramer Whitt Jr. Houston, TX

James Thomas Williams Jr. Greensboro, NC

Albert Lee Willis Durham, NC

Robert A. Yancey Marion, NC


Wilson Installed as PresidentWinston-Salem attorney G. Gray Wilson

has been sworn in as president of the NorthCarolina State Bar. He was sworn in byNorth Carolina Supreme Court ChiefJustice Mark Martin at the State Bar’sAnnual Dinner on Thursday, October 25,2018.

Wilson is a cum laude graduate ofDavidson College, and earned his law degreefrom Duke University School of Law. Hewas admitted to the practice of law in NorthCarolina in 1976. He is a currently a partnerwith the Winston-Salem office NelsonMullins Riley & Scarborough.

Wilson’s professional activities includebeing a fellow in the American College ofTrial Lawyers. He also served the NorthCarolina Bar Association on its Board ofGovernors, and was president from 2004-2005. Since 2006 he has served on theBoard of Directors of Lawyers MutualLiability Insurance Company, and has beenchair of the board since 2015.

Wilson was a North Carolina State Barcouncilor from 2007-2015, during whichtime he was vice-chair of the GrievanceCommittee, and chair of the Board ofParalegal Certification and PublicationsCommittee.

In addition to his numerous professionalactivities, Wilson is also involved with hiscommunity, serving his church as a deacon,and working with the Old Hickory Councilof the Boy Scouts of America.

Willoughby Sworn In as President-Elect

Raleigh attorney C. Colon Willoughbyhas been sworn in as president-elect of theNorth Carolina State Bar. He was sworn inby North Carolina Supreme Court ChiefJustice Mark Martin at the State Bar’sAnnual Dinner on Thursday, October 25,2018.

Willoughby earned an undergraduatedegree in business administration from theUniversity of North Carolina at ChapelHill, and an MBA from East CarolinaUniversity. In 1979 he graduated fromCampbell University’s Norman AdrianWiggins School of Law.

Willoughby is a partner with theRaleigh firm McGuireWoods, where hefocuses his practice on government, regula-tion, and criminal investigations. Prior tojoining McGuireWoods, he worked as amortgage banker, as a member of the facul-ty at Peace College, as a private practition-er, and served as the elected district attor-ney in Wake County for 27 years.

His other professional activities haveincluded serving as president of the WakeCounty Academy of Trial Lawyers, directorof the Wake County Bar Association, pres-ident of North Carolina Conference ofDistrict Attorneys, and a member of theBoard of Directors of the National DistrictAttorney’s Association.

Willoughby served as a State Bar coun-cilor from 1998-2006, and was electedagain in 2014. During his time as a coun-cilor he has served as chair of the

Authorized Practice Committee, and asvice-chair of the Grievance Committee.

Willoughby has been extensivelyinvolved in the community. He has servedon the Board of Governors of SummitHouse, Inc., as director of Artspace, Inc., asa member of the Raleigh Rotary Club, onthe Triangle YMCA Board of Directors,and on the Board of Directors forNCLEAF. He also is an active member ofWhite Memorial Presbyterian Church,where he serves as an Elder.

Christy Sworn In as Vice-PresidentGreensboro attorney Barbara R. Christy

has been sworn in as vice-president of theNorth Carolina State Bar. She was sworn inby North Carolina Supreme Court ChiefJustice Mark Martin at the State Bar’sAnnual Dinner on Thursday, October 25,2018.

Christy earned her BS magna cum laudefrom Appalachian State University, and herJD from the University of North CarolinaSchool of Law.

A member of Schell Bray, her practicefocuses on commercial real estate transac-tions.

Christy’s professional activities includevolunteering with Legal Aid of NorthCarolina’s Lawyer on the Line initiative.She is also a North Carolina State Barboard certified specialist in real propertylaw—business, commercial, and industrialtransactions, a fellow with the AmericanCollege of Real Estate Lawyers, and amember of the Piedmont TriadCommercial Real Estate Women.Additionally, Christy is involved with hercommunity, serving on the Board ofDirectors for Southern Alamance FamilyEmpowerment, Inc., and is a past memberof the UNC Law Foundation, Inc. Boardof Directors.

As a Bar councilor, Christy has served asvice-chair of the Authorized Practice


B A R U P D A T E S

State Bar Swears In New Officers

Wilson Willoughby Christy

WINTER 201842

Mine


As is traditional, members of the North Carolina State Bar who are celebrating the 50th anniversary of their admission to practice were hon-ored during the State Bar’s Annual Meeting at the 50-Year Lawyers Luncheon. One of the honorees, Larry S. McDevitt, addressed the attendees,and each honoree was presented a certificate by the president of the State Bar, John Silverstein, in recognition of his or her service. After theceremonies were concluded, the honorees in attendance sat for the photograph below. n

Fifty-Year Lawyers Honored

First row (left to right): John E. Gehring, David Grier Martin Jr., Milton Bays Shoaf Jr., William S. Hoyle, Mahlon W. Deloatch Jr., Edwin W.Welch, Wesley D. Corle, Robert J. Bernhardt, Gerald H. Davidson Jr., Meyressa Hughes Schoonmaker, Richard S. Towers, James L. Graham, F.Nelson Blount-Crisp, Burnace M. Hancock Jr., Robert D. Douglas III, Richard L. Voorhees, Howard E. Manning Jr. Second row (left to right):Marvin E. Taylor Jr., J. Thomas Dunn Jr., Stephen E. Culbreth, W. Hugh Thompson, William P. Pope, Robert G. Ray, James N. Duggins Jr.,Algernon L. Butler Jr., John N. Fountain, George M. Cleland III, Steve C. Horowitz, Richard E. Jonas, Ronald Vance Shearin, Pender R. McElroy,Eugene Woods Purdom, James H. Kelly Jr. Third row (left to right): Douglas R. Gill, O. Tracy Parks III, David B. Sentelle, George V. Hanna III,Robert Phillips Gruber, W. Louis Bissette Jr., Charles R. Young Sr., William P. Harris, Kenneth Allen Moser, H. Dockery Teele Jr., William E.Clark, Thomas E. Archie, Larry S. McDevitt, Samuel G. Thompson

B A R U P D A T E S

New Officers (cont.)Committee, Grievance Committee, andLegislative Committee, and as chair of theEthics Committee.

Christy and her family live on a smallfarm in the Snow Camp community wherethey raise beef cattle, honey bees, and fruittrees. She is a member of SaxapahawUnited Methodist Church where she hasbeen the long-time church pianist.

Mine Sworn In as Secretary/Treasurer

Alice Neece Mine, long-time assistant

executive director of the North CarolinaState Bar, has been installed as the agency’ssecretary/treasurer, succeeding L. ThomasLunsford, II, who had held the post since1992. Ms. Mine was sworn in by NorthCarolina Supreme Court Justice Mark Mar-tin at the State Bar’s Annual Dinner onThursday, October 25, 2018.

Ms. Mine is a summa cum laude gradu-ate of North Carolina State University. Sheearned her law degree from the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill and wasadmitted to practice in 1985.

After eight years of private practice inDurham, she accepted a position as the State

Bar’s assistant executive director in 1993.Since that time, she has served as seniorethics counsel and as director of the Boardsof Legal Specialization, Continuing LegalEducation, and Paralegal Certification.

A nationally recognized expert on thesubject of professional ethics, Ms. Minealso taught professional responsibility as anadjunct professor at the Duke UniversityLaw School for many years, and served onthe American Bar Association’s StandingCommittees on Legal Specialization andProfessional Discipline. She also served onthe Board of Directors of the UNC Schoolof Law’s Alumni Association. n

Resolution of Appreciation for

John M. SilversteinWHEREAS, John M. Silverstein was elected by his fellow lawyers from Judicial District 10 in 2007 to serve as theirrepresentative in this body. Thereafter, he was elected for three successive three-year terms as councilor; and

WHEREAS, in October 2015, Mr. Silverstein was elected vice-president, and in October 2016, he was elected president-elect. On October 26, 2017, he was sworn in as president of the North Carolina State Bar; and

WHEREAS, during his service to the North Carolina State Bar, Mr. Silverstein has served on the following committees: AdHoc Trust Accounting; Administrative; Appointments; Attorney/Client Assistance; Authorized Practice; Executive; Facilities;Finance and Audit; Grievance; Issues; Issues Outreach Subcommittee; Issues Special Committee to Review AP Advisory Opinion2002-1; Legislative; Program Evaluation; Program Evaluation Trust Account Subcommittee; and Special Committee to StudyEthics 20/20 Resolution; and

WHEREAS, having pledged to continue the important work of his predecessor in regard to the State Bar’s engagement withthe legal community and the general public, President Silverstein never declined an opportunity to personally explain andpromote the important work of the State Bar and the effectiveness of self-regulation. He was, in this undertaking, tireless andubiquitous, appearing throughout the state and throughout the year in person, in print, in PowerPoint, and in podcast, neverfailing to enlighten and inspire; and

WHEREAS, President Silverstein’s energy and attention were inwardly directed as well. Recognizing that ten years had elapsedsince the last comprehensive evaluation of the State Bar’s disciplinary program had been undertaken, he commissioned a specialcommittee to review the organization and performance of this most important of the State Bar’s regulatory endeavors. Thepainstaking review confirmed the disciplinary program’s effectiveness and efficiency while suggesting a few modest changes torules, policies, and procedures to enhance the fairness and credibility of the undertaking; and

WHEREAS, during his year as president, Mr. Silverstein initiated several other special projects that individually and collectivelystrengthened and invigorated the State Bar’s regulatory program. In particular, President Silverstein commissioned specialcommittees to review the American Bar Association’s new Model Rules on Advertising, as well as the State Bar’s own rulesconcerning the practical training of law students and the operation of the attorney/client assistance program. All of theseinitiatives were calculated to validate the premise that self-regulation is credible and justifiable only when leavened by criticalintrospection; and

WHEREAS, President Silverstein has with a sure and steady hand guided the State Bar through a transition in administrativeleadership, the likes of which the agency had not experienced in a generation. By facilitating Alice Mine’s succession of TomLunsford as executive director, Mr. Silverstein ensured that the policies of the council will continue to be executed withcompetence, fidelity, and imagination, and perpetuated an administrative culture that is stable and humane; and

WHEREAS, John Silverstein, by virtue of his own surpassing humanity and grace, has personified the North Carolina StateBar. In so doing, he has elevated our spirits and our sense of purpose. All of us, and the agency he served, are better for havingbeen led by John Silverstein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the council of the North Carolina State Bar does hereby publicly andwith deep appreciation acknowledge the strong, effective, and unselfish leadership of John M. Silverstein, and expresses to himits debt for his personal service and dedication to the principles of integrity, trust, honesty, and fidelity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be made a part of the minutes of the Annual Meeting ofthe North Carolina State Bar and that a copy be delivered to John M. Silverstein.

WINTER 201844

B A R U P D A T E S

Client Security Fund Reimburses Victims

At its October 25, 2018, meeting, theNorth Carolina State Bar Client SecurityFund Board of Trustees approved paymentsof $13,479 to eight applicants who sufferedfinancial losses due to the misconduct ofNorth Carolina lawyers. As set out below,another $58,440 was paid to 58 additionalapplicants between the July and Octobermeetings for a total of $71,919 paid thisquarter.

The payments authorized were:1. An award of $600 to a former client

of Robert A. Bell of Fayetteville. The boarddetermined that Bell was retained to handlea client’s custody matter regarding his step-grandson. Bell failed to provide any mean-ingful legal services for the fee paid. Bellwas transferred to disability inactive statuson April 10, 2015. The board previously re-imbursed six other Bell clients a total of$12,375.

2. An award of $1,000 to a former clientof Charles R. Gurley of Goldsboro. Theboard determined that Gurley was retainedto represent a client on DWI charges. Gurleyfailed to provide any meaningful legal serv-ices for the client for the fee paid prior tobeing jailed, and then suspended from thepractice of law, by a superior court judgedue to his failing to provide the State Barwith records of his handling of clients’ funds.Gurley was enjoined from practicing law onNovember 22, 2017. The board previouslyreimbursed nine other Gurley clients a totalof $4,375.

3. An award of $200 to a former clientof Charles Gurley. The board determinedthat Gurley was retained to represent a clienton a DWLR charge. Gurley failed to providethe client with any meaningful legal servicesfor the fee paid prior to his suspension.

4. An award of $524 to a former clientof Charles Gurley. The board determinedthat Gurley was retained to represent a clienton criminal charges. Gurley failed to providethe client with any meaningful legal servicesfor the fee paid prior to his suspension.

5. An award of $5,700 to a former client

of Kenneth Holmes of Statesville. The boarddetermined that Holmes was retained by aclient to handle his accident claim. Holmessettled the matter and received the settle-ment. Holmes retained some of the settle-ment funds to pay a Medicaid lien; however,he never paid any funds to Medicaid. Dueto misappropriation, Holmes’ trust accountbalance is insufficient to pay all client obli-gations. This award will be subject to theMedicaid lien.

6. An award of $455 to a former client ofChristi Misocky of Fort Mill, South Carolina.The board determined that Misocky handleda client’s real estate closing. Misocky was sup-posed to purchase a home warranty for theclient from the closing proceeds. Misockynever paid the premium. Due to misappro-priation, Misocky’s trust account balance isinsufficient to pay all client obligations.

7. An award of $5,000 to former clientsof Christi Misocky. The board determinedthat Misocky was retained by a couple tohandle the adoption of their niece. Uponreceipt of the entire fee from the couple,Misocky closed her office and cut off allcommunication with the couple and theclerk’s office. Misocky failed to provide theclients with any meaningful legal servicesfor the fee paid.

Reconsideration of a DeniedChristopher Greene Claim

At its July meeting the board considereda $680 claim made by a former client ofChristopher Greene of Charlotte, who hadretained Greene to obtain a work permit forthe client. Greene provided no meaningfullegal services to the client for the fee paid.The claim was denied due to the client’sfailure to provide proof of payment of thefee to Greene. The claim was reconsideredonline shortly after the July meeting afterthe trustee of Greene’s practice provided thereceipt. Greene was disbarred on February11, 2017. The board previously reimbursed12 other Greene clients a total of $32,625.

Additional Charles R. Gurley ClaimsAt the July meeting, the board considered

ten of the 78 claims then pending againstCharles R. Gurley from Goldsboro. Theboard established criteria for its counsel touse in evaluating the remaining claims andauthorized counsel to pay, with the chair’sapproval, all claims that met the board’s cri-teria for payment. Pursuant to the board’scriteria and authorization, counsel paid 57additional Charles R. Gurley claims totaling$57,760 between the July and Octobermeetings. n


Speakers on topics relative to the North Carolina State Bar’s regulatory mission areavailable at no charge for presentations in North Carolina to lawyers and to membersof the public. Topics include the State Bar’s role in the regulation of the legal profession;the State Bar’s disciplinary process; how the State Bar provides ethical guidance tolawyers; the Lawyer Assistance Program of the State Bar; the Client Security Fund;IOLTA: Advancing Justice for more than 20 Years; LegalZoom, and updating conceptsof the practice of law; and anti-trust questions for the regulation of the practice of lawin North Carolina. Requests for speakers on other relevant topics are welcomed. Formore information, call or email Lanice Heidbrink at 919-828-4630 [email protected].

Speakers Bureau Available

B A R U P D A T E S

Law School Briefs

Campbell University School of LawCampbell Law welcomes second-largest

class—The 188 first-year law students enter-ing the 2018 academic year at CampbellLaw School represent a significant mile-stone—the 10th new class of 1L studentssince the school moved from Buies Creek toits Raleigh campus just steps from theCapitol. In addition to being the school’ssecond-largest, the Class of 2021 comesfrom 64 undergraduate institutions with 45majors and includes eight Campbell FLEXstudents, two transfers, and one PatentCertificate student.

Campbell Law students partner with NeotaLogic on criminal records expunction app—Campbell Law students partnered withNeota Logic to develop an app specificallyfor the Blanchard Community Law Clinic toaid in the recent increase in criminal recordexpunction requests—more evidence the lawschool is blazing trails in legal technology. InDecember 2017 North Carolina implement-ed drastic changes in its expunction law, toinclude reducing the misdemeanor convic-tions wait period; the felony convictions waitperiod; and eliminating a limit on the num-ber of dismissals that can be expunged. Thischange has resulted in a significant increasein the number of residents seeking helpthrough the clinic and other providers,explained Ashley Campbell, director of thelaw school’s Blanchard Community LawClinic. The new application is the brainchildof Adjunct Professor Tom Brooke ’80, whoteaches “Coding for Lawyers” and saw theopportunity to marry technology and thisgrowing legal need with the help of some cre-ative law students. Brooke and his studentsused Neota Logic, a software developmenttool set for automating expertise, to createthe app, the first version of which was usedon October 13 when expunction clinics wereheld throughout the state.

Duke Law SchoolFemi Cadmus, a leader in the field of law

librarianship and legal information access,

joins the Duke Law faculty in November asthe Archibald C. and Frances Fulk Ruftyresearch professor of law, associate dean ofinformation services and technology, anddirector of the J. Michael Goodson LawLibrary at Duke Law School. She comes toDuke from Cornell Law School, where shewas the Edward Cornell law librarian, associ-ate dean for library services, and professor ofthe practice. She previously served in variousroles in the law libraries at Yale Law School,George Mason University School of Law,and the University of Oklahoma School ofLaw. She currently serves as president of theAmerican Association of Law Libraries, andin July she was named to the “Fastcase 50”list of entrepreneurs and innovators in lawand legal technology for her efforts to pro-mote open access to legal scholarship andinformation.

In The Positive Second Amendment: Rights,Regulation, and the Future of Heller(Cambridge University Press, 2018),Professors Joseph Blocher and Darrell Milleroffer the first comprehensive account of thehistory, theory, and law of the right to keepand bear arms in the aftermath of District ofColumbia v. Heller.

With The Death Penalty: Concepts andInsights (Foundation Press, 2018), ProfessorBrandon Garrett and co-author LeeKovarsky offer readers an overview of the lawand practice of the death penalty in theUnited States, as well as the fierce social andpolitical debate around it.

In When Lawyers Screw Up: ImprovingAccess to Justice for Legal Malpractice Victims(University Press of Kansas, 2018) ProfessorNeil Vidmar and co-author Herbert Kritzerreport on their comprehensive empiricalstudy of lawyers’ professional liability. Onekey finding: Some clients fail to obtainredress for their attorneys’ mistakes or negli-gence, even when they have suffered signifi-cant harm.

Elon University School of LawElon Law hosts US Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit—Elon University School

of Law marked an institutional milestone inOctober when, for the first time since theschool opened in 2006, the US Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oralarguments inside Elon Law’s Robert E.Long Courtroom. The three judges whowill rule on the cases also used their visit asan opportunity to share with Elon Law stu-dents their reflections on what the judiciaryand the service attorneys provide in faithful-ly representing clients. The Hon. Roger L.Gregory, the Hon. Diana Gribbon Motz,and the Hon. Albert Diaz and their lawclerks later gathered for a private lunch withselect students who have expressed interestin judicial clerkships following graduation.

NC attorney general to deliver Elon LawCommencement address—North CarolinaAttorney General Josh Stein will deliverElon Law’s commencement address for thesecond class to graduate from an innovative2.5-year legal education program thatemphasizes experiential learning and practi-cal training. Commencement takes placeSaturday, December 15, at 11 AM insideElon University’s Alumni Gym.

Elon Law alumna named law school’sassistant dean for development—BarbaraCini has been named Elon Law’s assistantdean for development following a nationalsearch. In her new role at the law school,Cini—a 2011 graduate of Elon Law—willdevelop and execute a comprehensive devel-opment program that includes major gifts,corporation and foundation relations,donor relations, and alumni engagement.Cini will work with Elon University andElon Law leaders in establishing fundraisingpriorities, assist in the management of theElon Law Board of Advisors, manage theElon Law Alumni Council, and overseeannual giving, directed through the ElonUniversity Office of Annual Giving.

North Carolina Central School ofLaw

The Square One Project, a newlylaunched three-year initiative to rethink jus-tice policies hosted the Reimagine Justice

WINTER 201846


Roundtable at North Carolina CentralUniversity School of Law October 11-13.The Future of Justice Policy panel examinedthe history of racial and economic inequality,and implications for justice policy and prac-tice. The event was co-hosted by the NorthCarolina Central University Juvenile JusticeInstitute, NCCU School of Law VirtualJustice Project, and the Justice Lab atColumbia University.

The opening panel was led by JeremyTravis, who is the co-founder of Square OneProject; the executive vice president of crim-inal justice, Laura and John ArnoldFoundation; and president emeritus, JohnJay College of Criminal Justice. The panel’stopic was: The Racial History of CriminalJustice in America. The panelist includedHeather Ann Thompson, author; andCedric J. Robinson, professor of Historyand African American Studies, University ofMichigan. An evening reception was held atDurham’s Beyù Cafè where an award waspresented to Cameron R. Wiley, winner ofthe Square One Student PaperCompetition.

The roundtable closed with a discussionled by Bruce Western, co-founder, SquareOne Project; co-director, Justice Lab; andprofessor of Sociology, Columbia University.

North Carolina Central UniversitySchool of Law collected 98 books to donateto the North Carolina Bar Foundation’sLawyers for Literacy program’s 2018 summerbook drive. Senior Director Kim BartMulkin praised the law school’s efforts:“Thank you to NCCU Law School andeveryone who participated in the book drive.The books that you donated will be sharedwith elementary school students across thestate who benefit from the Lawyers forLiteracy reading program.”

Professor Irving Joyner was a guest pan-elist on WRAL’s “On the Record” onSeptember 1. He discussed the six proposedamendments to the NC Constitutionwhich were voted on in the November 2018elections.

University of North Carolina School of Law

Carolina Law ranks No. 1 among NorthCarolina law schools for first time bar tak-ers—Eighty-six percent of the 106 CarolinaLaw graduates who took the NorthCarolina bar exam for the first time in July2018 passed. Carolina Law’s passage rate

exceeded the overall state passage rate of72.5% for first time test takers by over14%. The law school’s Research,Reasoning, Writing, and Advocacy(RRWA) program, now in its eighth year,ranks number 12 in legal writing by USNews & World Report’s 2019 edition of“America’s Best Graduate Schools.”

Earn CLE credit at festival and more—Upcoming CLE programs in Chapel Hillinclude the Festival of Legal Learning,February 8-9; The ABCs of Banking Law,March 20; the Banking Institute, March21-22. Visit law.unc.edu/cle.

Health law student group receives grant toincrease low-income access to medicalresources—The North Carolina Society ofHealth Care Attorneys awarded theCarolina Health Law Organization a$1,500 grant to create a resource for low-income individuals seeking pro bono andreduced-fee legal and consumer servicesrelated to health care.

Carolina Law welcomes new faculty mem-bers—Leigh Osofsky teaches IncomeTaxation, Partnership Tax, and Tax LawResearch & Writing; Elizabeth Sherowskiteaches Research, Reasoning, Writing, andAdvocacy I and II; Sheldon HollidayWelton teaches Energy Law: Resources &Electricity and Environmental Law; andJohn Wesley Brooker ’03 is director of theVeterans Legal Assistance Project in theclinical program.

Professor Eric L. Muller receives ProfessorKeith Aoki Asian Pacific AmericanJurisprudence Award—The award, estab-lished by the Conference of Asian PacificAmerican Law Faculty (CAPALF), is madeannually to an individual who has writtenor advocated on behalf of Asian PacificAmerican rights, or explored Asian PacificAmerican identity, history, or rightsthrough law, art, music, or in other forms.

Wake Forest School of Law Trial teams ranked No. 1 for their collec-

tive team performances since 2016—WakeForest Law also placed among the top threelaw schools in the country for its 2017-2018 trial team competition performances.The Wake Forest National Trial Team wontheir first-ever National Trial TeamChampionship in 2018, making WakeForest the only US law school to win thenational TYLA competition, the nationalAAJ Student Trial Advocacy Competition,

and the National Moot CourtCompetition in consecutive years.

Faculty jumped 20 spots since 2013 to No.44 in Brian Leiter's ranking of scholarlyimpact—Among Wake Forest Law’s topcited tenured faculty, three professors wereplaced in the top 20 of their areas of spe-cialty, including Mark Hall at No. 2 forHealth Law, Ronald Wright at No. 12 forCriminal Law and Procedure, and SidneyShapiro at No. 17 for Public Law. Top citedtenured faculty include Professors JonathanCardi, Michael Curtis, Margaret Taylor,Mike Green, Gregory Parks, John Knox,Alan Palmiter, Kami Chavis, and MargaretTaylor.

Wake Forest School of Law students placefirst in multiple writing competitions—Hailey Cleek (JD/MA Bioethics ’19) wonthe 2018 American Society for Bioethicsand Humanities (ASBH) Student WritingCompetition for her paper, “The Price ofRights: Centering Class in ContraceptionAccess.” Katherine Wenner (JD ’19) placedfirst in the New York State Bar AssociationCommittee on Animals Law StudentWriting Competition for her paper,“Pulling Wool Over Our Eyes: HowInconsistent and Misleading VoluntaryAnimal Welfare Food Labels are FailingConsumers and Animals.”

Professors Ronald Wright, Kami Chavis,and Gregory Parks released “The JurySunshine Project”—The project is a collec-tion of statistics from felony trial jury selec-tion across North Carolina’s 100 counties,which is publicly available to journalistsand scholars. n

Thank You to OurAnnual Meeting Sponsors

Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance Company

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

Engineering Systems, Incorporated

Board of Continuing Legal EducationSubmitted by Arnita M. Dula, Chair

Lawyers continue to meet and exceedtheir mandatory continuing legal educationrequirements. By mid-March 2018, the CLEdepartment processed and filed over 27,455annual report forms for the 2017 complianceyear. I am pleased to report that 99% of theactive members of the North Carolina StateBar complied with the mandatory CLErequirements for 2017. The report formsshow that North Carolina lawyers took atotal of 375,928 hours of CLE in 2017, or15 CLE hours on average per active memberof the State Bar. This is three hours above themandated 12 CLE hours per year.

The CLE program operates on a soundfinancial footing and has done so almostfrom its inception over 30 years ago. Fundsraised from attendee and noncompliance feesnot only support the administration of theCLE program, but also support three pro-grams that are fundamental to the adminis-tration of justice and the promotion of theprofessional conduct of lawyers in NorthCarolina. The program’s total 2017 contri-bution to the operation of the LawyersAssistance Program (LAP) was $250,610.26.To date in 2018, the board has also collectedand distributed $298,123 to support thework of the Equal Access to JusticeCommission and $298,362.55 to supportthe work of the Chief Justice’s Commissionon Professionalism. In addition, the CLEprogram generated $74,529.21 to cover theState Bar’s costs for administering the CLE-generated funds for the LAP and the twocommissions.

This year the board proposed an amend-ment to the annual CLE requirements torequire that one hour of the 12 mandatoryCLE hours per year be devoted to technolo-gy education. Technology is rapidly changingand is having an ever-increasing impact onthe practice of law. To maintain competence,it is critical that lawyers understand technol-ogy. The Supreme Court approved theamendment last month, and the require-

ment will be effective in 2019. NorthCarolina is one of only two states that nowrequires technology training.

The board also studied whether to elimi-nate the six hour on-demand cap on CLEprograms. Education is the primary purposeof CLE and lawyers should have more oppor-tunities to satisfy their requirements. It isanticipated that a proposed amendment willbe submitted to the council in January 2019.

Earlier this year the Supreme Courtapproved amendments to the rules governingthe CLE program to replace the term“accredited sponsor” with the term “regis-tered sponsor.” This change will avoid mis-leading consumers of CLE as to the extent towhich such sponsors are vetted by the board.The amendments also reconcile the require-ments for designation as a registered sponsorwith current practice.

Regrettably, my and Christina GoshawHinkle’s terms have come to an end. We willmiss serving on the board.

The board wishes to thank Alice Mine forher leadership with the CLE program overthe last 25 years. Her knowledge, expertise,and guidance have been invaluable to theboard. We wish her only the best as she stepsinto the role of executive director of the Bar.

The board strives to ensure that the con-tinuing legal education requirements mean-ingfully advance the competency of NorthCarolina lawyers. We welcome any recom-mendations or suggestions that councilorsmay have in this regard. On behalf of theother members of the board, I thank you forthe opportunity to contribute to the protec-tion of the public by overseeing the manda-tory continuing legal education program ofthe State Bar.

Board of Legal SpecializationSubmitted by Robert A. Mason, Chair

North Carolina’s Legal Specialization pro-gram exists for two reasons: First, to assist inthe delivery of legal services to the public byidentifying lawyers who have demonstratedspecial knowledge, skill, and proficiency in a

specific field so that the public can moreclosely match its needs with available services;and second, to improve the competency ofthe Bar. 27 N.C. Admin. Code 1D.1701. Iam proud to report that, under the guidanceof the Board of Legal Specialization, and withthe tireless efforts of the specialty committeesand staff, our program is stronger than everand continually achieving the very purposefor which the State Bar Council created theprogram in 1985. On top of that, our pro-gram is entirely self-sufficient.

With the addition of 47 new specialistslast November, there are now 1,040 certifiedlegal specialists in North Carolina. The StateBar’s specialization program certifies lawyersin 13 specialties. This spring we received 118applications from lawyers seeking certifica-tion. Of the 2018 applicants, 106 met thesubstantial involvement, CLE, and peerreview standards for certification and wereapproved to sit for the specialty exams. Thiswill be one of the largest groups of examineessince the creation of the program.

To assist lawyers interested in becomingcertified specialists but who are not yet quali-fied, this year we successfully created andimplemented a new process allowing lawyersto fill out a Declaration of Intent form. Thisform allows our staff to track, communicatewith, and assist interested lawyers regardingthe lawyer’s eligibility under the applicablecertification standards. We also started a lawschool outreach program that included visitsto the law schools and presentation of aninformational poster that the law school staffcan post in their career services office.

In April 2018 the Board of LegalSpecialization held its annual luncheon tohonor both long-time and newly-certifiedspecialists at the North Hills Renaissance inRaleigh. At the lunch, the specialists who werecertified in November 2017 were recognizedand presented with specialization lapel pins.The board also recognized 33 specialists whowere originally certified in 1993 and whohave maintained their certifications for thepast 25 years. Additionally, we had the honor

B A R U P D A T E S

Annual Reports of State Bar Boards

WINTER 201848


of presenting the board’s three Service andExcellence Awards named in honor of pastchairs of the board. The Howard L. GumExcellence in Committee Service Award wasgiven to Robert C. Kemp III, a criminal lawspecialist from Greenville, for his dedication,service, and leadership as chair of theCriminal Law Specialty Committee. TheJames E. Cross Leadership Award was pre-sented to Leonard T. Jernigan Jr., who is aworkers’ compensation law specialist inRaleigh, for his long history as an esteemedCLE presenter and author, as well as for hiswidely recognized knowledge and dedicationto the field. The Sara H. Davis ExcellenceAward was presented to Rose M. Stout, a cer-tified specialist in family law from Raleigh, forserving as an exceptional role model for otherlawyers and exemplifying excellence in herdaily law practice.

I am also happy to report the Jeri L.Whitfield Legal Specialty CertificationScholarship Fund established to providescholarships for specialization application feesfor prosecutors, public defenders, and non-profit public interest lawyers who wish tobecome certified specialists has been very suc-cessful in 2018. The fund is administered bythe North Carolina Legal EducationAssistance Foundation (NC LEAF). Wereceived several donations during the special-ists’ luncheon in April, and several specialistsmade donations when paying their annualspecialization fees. The fund balance at thebeginning of 2018 was $655; we havereceived an additional $1,385 for the scholar-ship fund thus far in 2018. All contributionsare tax deductible and can be made throughNC LEAF. As a result of this scholarshipfund, I am pleased to report that seven publicinterest applicants received scholarships thisyear, thereby offering these lawyers the oppor-tunity to not only attain certified status, butalso instill trust and confidence in the legalservices received by the clients they serve.

Our exams continue to be a strong andobjective measure of proficiency for the vari-ous specialties, and we are ever-striving toimprove both the content of the exams andthe testing experience. In 2018 we continuedto work with Dr. Devdass Sunnassee ofUNC-Greensboro. Dr. Sunnassee and hisgraduate students provided valuable psycho-metric analysis for each of our specialty examsto ensure they remain valid and reliable. Wealso continue to utilize ExamSoft and itsrecently released testing program, Examplify,

for all of our testing needs. Examsoft is asecure, cloud-based software that is used bymany law schools and on most bar exams.The program’s significant capabilities helpstreamline all aspects of the testing process,from writing and storing exam questions tograding and analyzing exams.

Completing the process begun in 2017,we are excited to offer the first privacy andinformation security law specialty exams inOctober 2018. Privacy and information secu-rity law is an ever-growing field and is increas-ingly in demand amongst the public. Eightlawyers were appointed to the initial Privacyand Information Law Specialty Committee.These lawyers volunteered their time to estab-lish the standards for certification and draftthe exam. The committee is chaired byMatthew Cordell, who has practiced in thefield of privacy and information security lawsince 2007. Matthew and the other specialtycommittee members bring a wealth of knowl-edge about this area of law to our program.

Also in this year’s specialization news, theState Bar Journal featured interviews with themembers of the Privacy and InformationSecurity Law Specialty Committee; withLeslie Carter Rawls, an appellate practice spe-cialist practicing in Charlotte; and withDelores Todd, a public member of the special-ization board. Regrettably, Ms. Todd rotatedoff the board this year. We are thankful for thecouncil’s addition of our new public member,Patricia Head of Raleigh. Lastly, with the pro-motion of Alice Mine to executive director ofthe North Carolina State Bar, we welcomedBrian Oten as the new director for the Boardof Legal Specialization in July 2018.

On behalf of the board, I want to expressmy sincere appreciation to the members ofthe council for your continuing support ofthe Legal Specialization program.

Board of Paralegal CertificationSubmitted by Robert C. Bowers, Chair

North Carolina’s Paralegal Certificationprogram exists for two reasons: First, to assistin the delivery of legal services to the public byidentifying individuals who are qualified byeducation and training and have demonstrat-ed knowledge, skill, and proficiency to per-form substantive legal work under the direc-tion and supervision of a licensed lawyer; andsecond, to improve the competency of thoseindividuals. 27 N.C. Admin. Code 1G.0101.I am proud to report that, under the guidanceof the Board of Paralegal Certification, and

with the tireless efforts of various volunteersand staff, our program is thriving and contin-ually achieving the very purpose for which theState Bar Council created the program in2004. Importantly, our program is entirelyself-sufficient.

Thirteen years after the first applicationfor paralegal certification was accepted by theboard on July 1, 2005, there are today 4,039North Carolina State Bar certified paralegals.This year, 147 paralegals were eligible for theApril 2018 exam; of that number, 107 passedthe exam. We recently administered ourOctober 2018 exam, for which 203 paralegalswere eligible. We anticipate designating wellover 100 new certified paralegals after theresults of the October exam are released inNovember.

Also, in 2018 the board considered 3,489recertification applications. To maintain certi-fication, a certified paralegal must completesix hours of continuing paralegal education(CPE) credits annually, including one hour ofethics. I am pleased to report that certifiedparalegals have continued to improve theircompetency by taking over 20,000 hours ofCPE in the last 12 months.

The board held its annual retreat in Aprilat the State Bar building in Raleigh. Amongthe various agenda items were two importantrequests submitted by certified paralegals.First, we received a request to create and pro-vide to certified paralegals a laminated mem-bership card, similar to attorney bar cards, toallow certified paralegals to identify them-selves as such to courthouse and other govern-mental officials. Second, in recognition of thesometimes significant distress experienced byparalegals, we received a request to offer men-tal health services to certified paralegals simi-lar to the Lawyer’s Assistance Program (LAP).The board continues to debate these requests,both in terms of logistics and contribution tothe legal profession.

Our exams continue to be a strong andobjective measure of proficiency for paralegalsin this state, and we are ever-striving toimprove both the content of the exams andthe testing experience. In 2018 we continuedto work with Dr. Devdass Sunnassee ofUNC-Greensboro. Dr. Sunnassee and hisgraduate students provided valuable psycho-metric analysis for our certification exam toensure our exam remains valid and reliable.We also continue to utilize ExamSoft, asecure, cloud-based software that is used bymany law schools and on most bar exams.

WINTER 201850

The software’s significant capabilities helpstreamline all aspects of the testing process,from writing and storing exam questions tograding and analyzing exams. We are current-ly speaking with different paralegal schoolsaround the state in an attempt to offer ourcertification exam at their facilities usingExamSoft. If we succeed in this endeavor, wewill be able to offer the certification exam in anumber of convenient locations, therebyincreasing paralegals’ access to our programand the public’s access to certified paralegals.

Nine years ago, at the State Bar’s October2009 annual meeting, the board presented acheck to then President John McMillan in theamount of $500,000 as a contribution to theState Bar Foundation for the construction ofthe new State Bar building. This contributionwas possible because paralegals embraced thecertification program from its inception,thereby enabling the program to operate “inthe black” financially from the beginning.Prudent management of the finances of the

program continues to allow the board, onoccasion, to make substantial contributions offunds to important initiatives. This year theboard contributed $5,000 to the NorthCarolina Paralegal Association for the produc-tion of a low-cost continuing paralegal educa-tion course.

Regrettably, Shelby D. Benton’s term as amember of the board, along with my own,have come to an end. Councilor Matthew W.Smith of Eden and attorney Benita Powell ofFayetteville are recommended to fill the cur-rent vacant positions. Warren C. Hodges, ourcurrent vice-chair, has agreed to serve as chairif appointed. Bryan G. Scott has agreed toserve as vice-chair if appointed. Lastly, withthe promotion of Alice Mine to executivedirector of the North Carolina State Bar, wewelcomed Brian Oten as the new director forthe Board of Paralegal Certification in July2018.

The Board of Paralegal Certification looksforward to continued success certifying quali-

fied paralegals to help with the delivery oflegal services to the citizens of NorthCarolina. We welcome any recommendationsor suggestions that councilors may have forways in which the board might improve theparalegal certification program. On behalf ofthe other members of the board, thank youfor the opportunity to contribute to the pro-tection of the public by overseeing this impor-tant program of the North Carolina State Bar.

Lawyer Assistance ProgramSubmitted by Robynn Moraites, Director

Your NC Lawyer Assistance Program(LAP) and its dedicated volunteers continueto make unprecedented inroads across thestate, carrying a message of hope, recovery,and transformation of personal and profes-sional lives.

A riveting NY Times feature article about abig firm, Silicon Valley lawyer who died from


Barbara B. WeyherBarbara B. (Bonnie) Weyher was present-

ed with the John B. McMillanDistinguished Service Award at the WakeCounty Bar Association’s luncheon onOctober 2, 2018. The award was presentedby North Carolina State Bar Vice PresidentColon Willoughby.

Ms. Weyher is a 1977 honors graduate ofthe UNC School of Law, where she served asa staff member of the North Carolina LawReview. Following law school, Ms. Weyherbegan her legal career in New York City. In1979 she returned to North Carolina andjoined the firm of Young, Moore,Henderson & Alvis in Raleigh. In 1983 Ms.Weyher became one of the founding part-ners of Yates, McLamb & Weyher. She nowserves as senior counsel to the firm.

Ms. Weyher’s practice is primarily in theareas of insurance coverage, professional lia-bility, and alternate dispute resolution. Shehas been a certified mediator since 1995.She is a member of the North CarolinaAcademy of Superior Court Mediators and

is an American Arbitration AssociationPanel member.

Ms. Weyher has provided invaluableservice to the North Carolina State Bar. Sheserved as the president of the State Bar from2009 to 2010. In addition to her role as anofficer, Ms. Weyher’s service to the State Barincluded nine years as a State Bar councilorrepresenting Wake County’s 10th JudicialDistrict. During her time as a councilor, Ms.Weyher served on the ExecutiveCommittee, the Issues Committee, and thePublications Committee. She also chairedthe Grievance Committee, the EthicsCommittee, and the Authorized Practice ofLaw Committee. In addition, she served onthe State Bar’s Disciplinary HearingCommission from 2012 to 2015.

Ms. Weyher has also been active with theNorth Carolina Bar Association. She is amember of the Litigation Section, theInsurance Section, and the DisputeResolution Section. She has served as chairof the Litigation Section and as secretaryand CLE chair of the Dispute Resolution

Section.Ms. Weyher served as president of the

Wake County Bar Association in 1997 andas a member of the American BarAssociation’s House of Delegates from 2012to 2016.

Ms. Weyher is active with UNC LawSchool. She has served as president of theAlumni Association and as a member of theChancellor’s Scholarship Committee for thelaw school. In 2014 she received the UNCSchool of Law Distinguished AlumniAward. She has also been awarded the NorthCarolina Association of Women Attorneys’Gweneth B. Davis Public Service Award andthe Women of Justice Award by NorthCarolina Lawyers Weekly.

Nominations SoughtMembers of the Bar are encouraged to

nominate colleagues who have demonstrat-ed outstanding service to the profession. Thenomination form is available on the StateBar’s website, ncbar.gov. Please direct ques-tions to Suzanne Lever, [email protected]. n

John B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award

Sarah Abdelmessih Raleigh, NC

James Ablard Wilmington, NC

Robert Adler Waxhaw, NC

David Ahmadi Raleigh, NC

Dawnwin Allen Charlotte, NC

Markea Allen Fayetteville, NC

Margarete Allio Johns Island, SC

Toya Allison Fayetteville, NC

Hailey Amico Mount Pleasant, SC

Katherine Anderson Charleston, SC

Rebecca Anderson Greensboro, NC

Nicole Arrington Charlotte, NC

Zeliha Arslan High Point, NC

Taimoor Aziz Bunnlevel, NC

Tameka Baldwin Raleigh, NC

Catherine Bamba Raeford, NC

Jenna Bass Fuquay Varina, NC

Latasha Bembury Durham, NC

Victoria Bennett Raleigh, NC

Andre Bess Durham, NC

Kevona Bethune Hope Mills, NC

Kimberley Beyer Glenville, NC

Brandye Birdsall Elizabeth City, NC

Latoya Blackwell Fuquay- Varina, NC

Sarah Blessing Raleigh, NC

James Blohm Raleigh, NC

Marvilyn Bohannan Mebane, NC

Paula Booth Winston-Salem, NC

Katherine Bordwine Greensboro, NC

Kevin Boston Lumberton, NC

Michael Boykin Raleigh, NC

Daniel Braswell Durham, NC

Joseph Brennan Charlotte, NC

Joseph Brewer Raleigh, NC

Kayla Britt Durham, NC

Connor Brooks Raleigh, NC

Blakeney Brown Gastonia, NC

Carmen Brown Hickory, NC

Julia Brown Greensboro, NC

Neilson Brown Huntersville, NC

Jennifer Bryan Bladenboro, NC

Catherine Bryant Greensboro, NC

Renee Burris New London, NC

Asia Buss Spring Lake, NC

Micah Byrd Winston-Salem, NC

Brent Caldwell Durham, NC

Anthony Campbell Whitsett, NC

Ashley Campbell Whitsett, NC

Bridget Campbell Atkinson, NC

Natashia Cannedy Charlotte, NC

Christa Castillo Indian Land, SC

James Chandler Charlotte, NC

Laura Chase Angier, NC

Katherine Chatman Tampa, FL

Richard Chen Raleigh, NC

Yingtong Chen Oakland, CA

Jean Christy Asheville, NC

Timothy Clanton Raleigh, NC

Thomas Clark Roebuck, SC

Gerard Clodomir Greensboro, NC

Monica Cloud Silver Spring, MD

Roger Condrey Concord, NC

Chelsea Cook Durham, NC

Birshari Cooper Cary, NC

Rodneycia Cooper St. Petersburg, FL

Sarah Cortvriend North Palm Beach, FL

Jason Cramer Fuquay Varina, NC

Jordan Cranman Raleigh, NC

Ashia Crooms-Carpenter Mint Hill, NC

Reko Currie Greensboro, NC

Coy Curry Wilkesboro, NC

Jason Dangler Charlotte, NC

Rachel Davis Mooresville, NC

Yolanda Davis Raleigh, NC

Nicole Debartolo Monroe, NC

Lane Debellis Winston-Salem, NC

Joseph Demartin Raleigh, NC

Joseph Dennis Morganton, NC

Anna Devries Charlotte, NC

Bertha Dixon Browns Summit, NC

Greg Dixon Elizabeth City, NC

Jeffrey Dodson Nashville, NC

Alexander Doernberg Cary, NC

Timothy Doherty Charlotte, NC

Jacqueline Douglas Greensboro, NC

Elizabeth Downer Greensboro, NC

Charles Draeger Colfax, NC

William Drennen St. Louis, MO

Megan Dyer Winston-Salem, NC

Abigail Eder Cary, NC

Shanelle Edmonds Pittsboro, NC

Jake Edwards Gastonia, NC

Michael Edwards Dudley, NC

Nicole Edwards Raleigh, NC

Jonathan Ekblad Raleigh, NC

Jacques El-Chayeb Chapel Hill, NC

Grant Engebretsen Durham, NC

Lomenie Etienne Olando, FL

Micaela Evans Greensboro, NC

Celsey Fannin Greensboro, NC

Cala Farina Cary, NC

Caitlin Farmer Waxhaw, NC

Imran Farooqi Huntersville, NC

Annette Faw Wilkesboro, NC

Elizaveta Fedun Hendersonville, NC

Jennifer Feinstein Raleigh, NC

Anna Finger Dallas, TX

James Fleming Winston-Salem, NC

Alexa Flores Cary, NC

Anna Bryce Flowe Matthews, NC

Alexandra Floyd Whiteville, NC

Derrick Foard Concord, NC

Tanisha Folks Fuquay Varina, NC

Jamaal Forney Fayetteville, NC

Kerese Foster Greensboro, NC

Meghan Francis Ravenel, SC

Lauren Franklin Rockwell, NC

Joshua Franks Raleigh, NC

Sarah Freeman Charlotte, NC

Matthew Freeze Salisbury, NC

Nikira Fults Concord, NC

Lisa Garner Greensboro, NC

Danielle Garon Charlotte, NC

Gary Gassel Sarasota, FL

Gia Gaster Mcleansville, NC

Seth Gerringer Burlington, NC

Rachel Gessouroun Edmond, OK

Shauna Gibson Wilmington, NC

Geoffrey Gilbert Delray Beach, FL

Charlene Gilliam Asheville, NC

Kiarra Gilliam Charlotte, NC

Amie Goldberg Winston Salem, NC

Zachary Goldberg Charlotte, NC

Madeline Gootman Durham, NC

Linda Green Holly Springs, NC

Susan Gregory Sarasota, FL

Chelsea Habermann Rock Hill, SC

Lejla Hadzic Concord, NC

Sandra Hagood Chapel Hill, NC

Matthew Hall Dobson, NC

February 2019 Bar Exam ApplicantsThe February 2019 bar examination will be held in Raleigh on February 26 and 27, 2019. Published below are the names of the applicants

whose applications were received on or before October 30, 2018. Members are requested to examine it and notify the board in a signed letterof any information which might influence the board in considering the general fitness of any applicant for admission. Correspondence shouldbe directed to Lee A. Vlahos, Executive Director, Board of Law Examiners, 5510 Six Forks Rd., Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27609.

B O A R D O F L A W E X A M I N E R S


Chao Han Swannanoa, NC

Matthew Hartburg Raleigh, NC

Kia Harvey Winston-Salem, NC

Morgan Harvey Greensboro, NC

Tommy Harvey Tyrone, GA

Latonya Hayes Stone Mountain, GA

Holly Hege Lexington, NC

Christopher Heller Winnabow, NC

Jaclyn Helton Burlington, NC

Jordan Hensley Greensboro, NC

Ashley Henson Wilmington, NC

Michelle Herd Birmingham, AL

Madison Hill Hendersonville, NC

Gary Hilton Maiden, NC

Catherine Hipps Carrboro, NC

Stephen Hodges Los Angeles, CA

Tia Hudgins Rocky Mount, NC

Tayler Hudson Apex, NC

Michelle Iqbal Charlotte, NC

Olivia Izze Durham, NC

Shinead James Loris, SC

Dana Jamison Riverside, CA

Joseph Jenkins Charlotte, NC

Lucas Jensen Cary, NC

Cameron Joe Raleigh, NC

Ariana Johnson Charotte, NC

Jasmine Johnson Elm City, NC

Sarah Johnson Siloam, NC

Bridget Jolly Mint Hill, NC

April Jones Charlotte, NC

Casey Jones Wilson'S Mills, NC

Charles Jones Greenville, NC

Dax Jones Greensboro, NC

Keren Jones Greensboro, NC

Thomas Jones Candler, NC

Marianna Kacjuba Charlotte, NC

Omar Kalala Charlotte, NC

Caitlin Kannan Castle Hayne, NC

Mark Kaplan Charlotte, NC

Laura Kays Wilmington, NC

Jackie Keener Knightdale, NC

Maryam Khan Greensboro, NC

Korey Kiger Raleigh, NC

Javier King Chapel Hill, NC

Michael King Morrisville, NC

Julie Kirstein Fairview, NC

Meredith Kittrell Raleigh, NC

Mercedes Knight Tarboro, NC

Larry Koonce Fayetteville, NC

Daniel Krchnavek Waco, TX

Fredrick Kromis Dallas, NC

Shveta Kulkarni Raleigh, NC

Margaret Kurz Fayetteville, NC

Asia Lance Greensboro, NC

Adam Langino Chapel Hill, NC

John Lanier Greensboro, NC

Scott Lanier Charlotte, NC

Rebecca Laton Carthage, NC

Elizabeth Lawson Winston Salem, NC

Clifford Leagan Mount Airy, NC

Kelsey Lee Concord, NC

Shianne Legrand Greensboro, NC

William Leopard Chapel Hill, NC

Andrew Leslie Kannapolis, NC

Colin Lloyd Raleigh, NC

Sara Locklear Landis, NC

Jared Lumley Greensboro, NC

Kelcee Mader Gainesville, FL

Mason Maney Philadelphia, PA

Robert Martin Greensboro, NC

Joseph Martinez Valdese, NC

Ellen Mathews Birmingham, AL

Natalie Mccann Wake Forest, NC

Kia Mccormick Raleigh, NC

Courtney Mcginness Wilmington, NC

Kelli Mcgonagle Clayton, NC

Samantha Mchone Mount Airy, NC

William Mchugh Leland, NC

Ian Mcintyre Macon, GA

Scarlett Mckinney Leicester, NC

Lauren Mckoy Broadway, NC

Jeffrey Mcmillion Graham, NC

Alfred Mcqueen Winston Salem, NC

Jazemine Mcsween Rockingham, NC

Heidi Mehaffey Plantation, FL

Charles Melcombe Durham, NC

Russell Michalec Salisbury, NC

Sherold Michaux Greensboro, NC

David Miller Charlotte, NC

Jonathan Miller Raleigh, NC

William Miller Greensboro, NC

Catherine Mitchell Durham, NC

Heather Mitchell Charlotte, NC

David Mohrmann Raleigh, NC

Kelsey Monk Raleigh, NC

Sondra Monroe Huntersville, NC

Jessica Moreau Mooresville, NC

Jana Morrison Charlotte, NC

Timberley Motsinger Greensboro, NC

Sarah Mullins Cornelius, NC

Ryan Mumper Durham, NC

Gilbert Munoz-Cornejo Fuquay Varina, NC

Jerry Murphy Tyler, TX

Talicia Neal Raleigh, NC

Barbara Nelson Goldsboro, NC

James Nelson Harrisburg, NC

Benjamin Newbern Aulander, NC

Jonathan Nobles Raleigh, NC

David Nolan Hope Mills, NC

Robert Northington Greensboro, NC

Erick Odom Raleigh, NC

Laura O'Grady Fayetteville, NC

Rebecca Olla Durham, NC

Valery Ortiz Caicedo Fort Mill, SC

Sarah Owens Charlotte, NC

Gunsel Ozcan Charlotte, NC

Gabrielle Padgett Irvine, CA

Joseph Parda Bunnlevel, NC

Jonathan Parisi Greensboro, NC

Ellie Parker Burlington, NC

Roshni Patidar Charlotte, NC

Andrew Peace Charlotte, NC

Joshua Peace Charlotte, NC

Michael Peevy Raleigh, NC

Blanca Pilgrim Raleigh, NC

Scheherazade Pittman Raleigh, NC

Tanya Plekan Cary, NC

Alexandra Porte Charleston, SC

Jeffrey Porter Whitsett, NC

Jose Posada Charlotte, NC

Marsha Poston King, NC

Lauren Presnell Black Mountain, NC

Brandon Price Fayetteville, NC

William Price Durham, NC

Victoria Prince Raleigh, NC

Rachel Procaccini Bluefield, WV

Michael Provencher Fayetteville, NC

Elyse Purnell Crawford Macon, GA

Brandi Quattlebaum Columbia, SC

Miroslava Radieva Hurdle Mills, NC

Carlton Rainer Charlotte, NC

Hollie Ramalingam Mebane, NC

William Ramos Holly Springs, NC

Caroline Ray Graham, NC

Gary Redding Halifax, NC

Katlyn Reh Charlotte, NC

Stacy Reid Monroe Charlotte, NC

Jacqueline Reitz Raleigh, NC

Maria Rengifo Raleigh, NC

Amber Resetar Castle Hayne, NC

Julie Reynolds-Engel Asheville, NC

Morgan Ricci Matthews, NC

Gloria Rice Charlotte, NC

Elinor Riefkohl Pinehurst, NC

Lisa Roach Charlotte, NC

Jalisa Roberts Winston-Salem, NC

Nicholas Roberts Salado, TX

Zachary Roberts Huntersville, NC

Steffi Rodriguez Saint Cloud, FL

Laura Rodriguez Castro Raleigh, NC

Matthew Roller Lexington, NC

Bradley Rooney Advance, NC

Erin Rousseau Morrisville, NC

David Rusk Charlotte, NC

Lauren Russell Wilmington, DE

Karen Rust Jamestown, NC

Carlton Ryals Raleigh, NC

Misty Ryan Charlotte, NC

Ziaedeen Saadat Greensboro, NC

Steven Sacco Sneads Ferry, NC

Leonard Saltzman Albemarle, NC

Jessalyn Santiago Wake Forest, NC

Noel Santorelli Leland, NC

David Saterfield Raleigh, AR

Ashlee Schaller Durham, NC

Michael Schehr Charlotte, NC

Abigail Schuette Charlotte, NC

Brooke Scott Raleigh, NC

Christopher Scott Asheboro, NC

Djenaba Scott Charlotte, NC

WINTER 201852

Emily Scotton Greensboro, NC

Taylor Scruggs-Smith Raleigh, NC

Matthew Sellers Chapel Hill, NC

Edith Serrano Rougemont, NC

Deondra Sexton Charlotte, NC

Abigail Seymour Greensboro, NC

Kerry Shipman Charleston, SC

Casey Simmons Charlotte, NC

Andrew Simpson Chapel Hill, NC

Brieanna Singletary Clayton, NC

Ashley Skaff Durham, NC

Jonathan Slager Columbia, SC

Paul Sloderbeck Oxford, NC

Brittany Smiley Topsail Beach, NC

Bradley Smith Charlotte, NC

Hannah Smith Winston-Salem, NC

Rachel Smith Durham, NC

Emily Smith Peacock Raleigh, NC

Meredith Solomon Johnson Raleigh, NC

Gabriel Soto-Perez Chantilly, VA

Brittany Spencer Wadesboro, NC

Jordan Sprenger-Wilson Charlotte, NC

Marissa Sprick Charlotte, NC

Avery Staley Mooresville, NC

Danny Stamey Pasadena, CA

Happy Stewart Asheville, NC

Matthew Stiglbauer Charlotte, NC

Elisabeth Stone Harlan, KY

Jessica Stone-Erdman Chapel Hill, NC

Samuel Sue Greensboro, NC

Carolyn Suhocki Charleston, SC

Laurie Suitt Durham, NC

Melissa Sumner Greensboro, NC

Jeffrey Swing High Point, NC

Alexis Sylvester Greensboro, NC

Edward Tarantino Troutman, NC

Justine Tate West Columbia, SC

Olivia Taylor Washington, NC

Frederick Terrell Hamlet, NC

Sara-Beth Testerman Charlotte, NC

Madison Thornton Greensboro, NC

Geoffrey Tilford Pittsboro, NC

Tyson Toles Apex, NC

Katherine Trotter Nashville, TN

Joseph Turner Mebane, NC

Walter Tuttle Raleigh, NC

Laquanda Tysinger Burlington, NC

Stephen Valentine Durham, NC

Samantha Varney Lexington, NC

Benjamin Venable Charlotte, NC

Alexandra Viele Greensboro, NC

Gabriell Vires Durham, NC

Stephanie Vlasis Winston-Salem, NC

Armand Volta Westminster, MD

Beutrice Walker Knightdale, NC

Grace Wallace Durham, NC

Evan Walton Winston Salem, NC

Austin Warner Atlanta, GA

Angela Watkins Monroe, NC

Tamikiyo Watters Durham, NC

Caroline Waugh Mooresville, NC

Karen Wellington Wilson, NC

Michael Wheaton Charlotte, NC

Alexa Whiteside Los Angeles, CA

Liling Wilford Greenville, NC

Michelle Willauer Washington, DC

Destiny Williams Garner, NC

Kendell Williams Henderson, NC

Patti Williams Waxhaw, NC

Richard Williams Greensboro, NC

Herman Wilson Jr Fayetteville, NC

Benjamin Winograd Carrboro, NC

Lauren Wolfe Charleston, SC

Zachary Woltz Sneads Ferry, NC

Kyla Wonder Durham, NC

Dorian Woolaston Winston-Salem, NC

Brian Wooten Winston Salem, NC

John Wright Frederick, MD

Logan Wyont Wilmington, NC

James Yandle Charlotte, NC

Elizabeth Young Gaithersburg, MD

Xenia Zeballos Parra Indian Land, SC

Leighton Zhong Orlando, FL


State Bar Annual Reports (cont.)a drug overdose created a unique opportunityfor LAP. The article was widely circulatedthroughout North Carolina’s largest lawfirms, resulting in the first-ever LAP presenta-tion at a Risk Management Roundtable withmanaging partners and general counsel of adozen large firms. The presentation, held inSeptember 2017, focused on strategies andpolicies firms can implement to catch issuesbefore they blossom into malpractice claims,ethical violations, client harm, or reputationaldamage. LAP was well received and has beeninvited into these firms to begin training part-ners, lawyers, and staff on recognizing andaddressing these issues. Lawyers Weekly fea-tured an article about the roundtable, leadingLawyers Mutual Insurance to request thatLAP provide a similar presentation at aManaging Partners Summit hosted for theirinsureds in May 2018. LAP is now scheduledfor in-house trainings with some of thosefirms as well. Given reports from LAP pro-grams nationally, NC law firms are leadingthe nation in proactively adopting programsand instituting training to identify and

address these issues.Members of the LAP Steering Committee

have been building relationships with thedeans of students at each of our NC lawschools for several years. As a result, and withthe stewardship of LAP volunteer TomRoman, LAP is scheduled to hold office hoursthis fall at UNC Chapel Hill, Wake ForestUniversity, NC Central University, and ElonUniversity. LAP volunteers will be visitingschools and interfacing directly with stu-dents—also a first for LAP. We are all curiousand excited to see the results of this engage-ment and, based upon what we learn, explorehow we might improve and modify ourapproach for the spring of 2019.

This year LAP partnered with Laura Mahrof Conscious Legal Minds. Beginning inFebruary 2018, LAP began sponsoring mind-fulness-based stress reduction CLEs across thestate with Ms. Mahr as the CLE speaker. Weworked with CLE sponsors such as local dis-trict bars and legal organizations who wereseeking innovative programming. The themefor the year was “Beginning a Conversation”about stress reduction and mindfulness tech-niques to improve the real-world, day-to-day

experiences of lawyers in practice. We havereceived overwhelmingly positive feedback.

LAP staff and volunteers gave 84 CLE pre-sentations and LAP opened 167 files this year.Attendance at our Minority OutreachConference soared. By moving to a newvenue, we are now able to abandon the wait-list. We had just over 600 attorneys registerthis year, with 538 in attendance.

I will end on a note of thanks to each andevery LAP volunteer who contributed to oursuccess this year. Whether by writing an arti-cle, speaking at a CLE, mentoring a lawyer,visiting a lawyer in distress, or any other con-tribution, both large and small, your com-bined and cumulative activities made a hugeimpact in the efficacy and visibility of ourprogram. A special note of thanks to LAP vol-unteer Tom Roman, who has been assisting usin the office during the prolonged vacancy wehave experienced while trying to find a suit-able replacement for Towanda Garner. Ourability to hold office hours in the law schoolsthis fall is owed in no small measure to Tom’sconsiderable passion, focus, and coordination.For a detailed annual report, please visitnclap.org/annual-report. n

The North Carolina State Bar2017 2016

AssetsCash and cash equivalents $7,858,566 $6,221,785 Property and equipment, net 15,460,710 16,239,757 Other assets 1,056,065 1,009,676

$24,375,341 $23,471,218 Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities $6,477,580 $4,789,288 Long-term debt 9,701,118 10,185,530

16,178,698 14,974,818 Fund equity-retained earnings 8,196,643 8,496,400

$24,375,341 $23,471,218 Revenues and ExpensesDues $8,449,799 $8,239,550Other operating revenues 1,030,945 996,582Total operating revenues 9,480,744 9,236,132 Operating expenses (9,407,056) (9,122,891)Non-operating expenses (373,445) (375,371)Net income $(299,757) $(262,130)

The NC State Bar Plan for Interest onLawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA)

2017 2016AssetsCash and cash equivalents $1,723,201 $1,774,393 Interest receivable 216,852 204,793 Other assets 9,397,027 11,637,546

$11,337,080$13,616,732 Liabilities and Fund EquityGrants approved but unpaid $4,597,745 $2,032,335Other liabilities 1,209,834 4,820,397

5,807,579 6,852,732Fund equity-retained earnings 5,529,501 6,764,000

$11,337,080$13,616,732 Revenues and ExpensesInterest from IOLTA participants, net $1,818,133 $1,767,287Other operating revenues 88,573 12,272.500Total operating revenues 1,906,706 14,039,787

Operating expenses (3,266,308) (8,146,807)Non-operating revenues 125,103 85,964 Net income (loss) $(1,234,499) $5,978,944

Board of Client Security Fund2017 2016

AssetsCash and cash equivalents $1,448,612 $602,022Other assets 4,850 -

$1,453,462 $602,022Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities $48,653 $59,649 Fund equity-retained earnings 1,404,809 542,373

$1,453,462 $602,022Revenues and ExpensesOperating revenues $1,726,154 $730,556 Operating expenses (863,855) (1,319,154)Non-operating revenues 137 286Net loss $862,436 $(588,312)

Board of Continuing Legal Education2017 2016

AssetsCash and cash equivalents $519,848 $607,976Other assets 3,732 9,393

$523,580 $617,369Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities 206,910 272,230Fund equity-retained earnings 316,670 345,139

$523,580 $617,369Revenues and ExpensesOperating revenues $708,094 $709,948Operating expenses (736,563) (697,249)Non-operating revenues - 4 Net (loss) income $(28,469) $12,703

Board of Legal Specialization2017 2016

AssetsCash and cash equivalents 164,785 180,694Other assets 3,502 6,835

$168,287 $187,529Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities 12,154 9,871 Fund equity-retained earnings 156,133 177,658

$168,287 $187,529

Revenues and ExpensesOperating revenues-specialization fees $184,535 $179,300Operating expenses (206,060) (183,034)Non-operating revenue - 2 Net income $(21,525) $(3,732)

The Chief Justice's Commission onProfessionalism

2017 2016AssetsCash and cash equivalents $450,226 $434,902 Other assets - -

$450,226 $434,902Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities - 525 Fund equity-retained earnings 450,226 434,377

$450,226 $434,902 Revenues and ExpensesOperating revenues-fees $360,753 $386,825 Operating expenses (344,904) (329,544)Non-operating revenues - - Net income $15,849 $57,281

Board of Paralegal Certification2017 2016

AssetsCash and cash equivalents $424,871 $458,134Other assets 3,754 6,683

$428,625 $464,817 Liabilities and Fund EquityCurrent liabilities - accounts payable 65,893 72,847 Fund equity-retained earnings 362,732 391,970

$428,625 $464,817Revenues and ExpensesOperating revenues-fees $256,660 $256,780 Operating expenses (285,898) (265,815)Non-operating revenues - 13 Net income $(29,238) $(9,022)

The North Carolina State Bar and Affiliated EntitiesSelected Financial Data

WINTER 201854

www.lawyersmutualnc.com919.677.8900 800.662.8843

WE MADE HISTORY WHEN WE STARTED.

WE’VE BEEN DOING IT EVER SINCE.

LAWYERS MUTUAL

CONNECT WITH US

919.677.8900 800.662.8843

919.677.8900 800.662.8843

ALTUUAMUS ERWYLAAW

www

ersmutualnc.comwy.lawww

OCW

ersmutualnc.com

TCENNOSUHTIW

The North Carolina State BarPO Box 25908Raleigh, NC 27611

Winter 2018

Documents

journal 23,4 Layout 1 - North Carolina State BarLinkedIn and other social media, to referral services, to cyber security, to lawyer advertis-ing. We cannot regulate the Internet, but