In re Braun
352 N.C. 327, 531 S.E.2d 213 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Misrepresentations, evasive responses, and inherently incredible claims made to the Board of Law Examiners during an application for bar admission can constitute a lack of candor, which is a sufficient basis to deny admission on character and fitness grounds.
Facts:
- From 1988 to November 1991, Nancy E. Braun worked as an associate attorney at two law firms in Buffalo, New York.
- In November 1991, Braun left her law firm job to co-own and operate a restaurant called Harvest Moon Cafe & Catering in Buffalo.
- For the next five years, from November 1991 to November 1996, Braun's primary occupation was operating the restaurant.
- During this period, Braun performed various law-related tasks for her restaurant, such as negotiating leases and contracts, and for employees and vendors, such as appearing in traffic court.
- Braun was not paid cash for these services; any compensation was "in kind," which she did not report as income on her federal tax returns.
- While operating the restaurant, Braun did not maintain a separate law office, carry professional malpractice insurance, advertise legal services, or attend continuing legal education courses.
- In November 1996, Braun moved from Buffalo, New York, to Charlotte, North Carolina.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 5, 1996, Nancy E. Braun applied for admission to the North Carolina Bar by comity.
- A two-member panel of the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners denied her application.
- Braun requested and received a de novo hearing before the full Board of Law Examiners.
- On December 1, 1997, the full Board issued an order denying Braun's application, concluding she failed to prove she was actively and substantially engaged in the practice of law and that she lacked the requisite character and general fitness.
- Braun appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court, Wake County (trial court).
- On September 3, 1999, the Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision.
- Braun then appealed the Superior Court's order to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, challenging only the finding related to her character and fitness.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an applicant for admission to the state bar by comity demonstrate a lack of good moral character and fitness when she makes exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about her active and substantial engagement in the practice of law, thereby showing a lack of candor?
Opinions:
Majority - Freeman, Justice
Yes. An applicant for admission to the state bar demonstrates a lack of the requisite good moral character and fitness when she makes exaggerated, unsubstantiated, and inherently incredible claims to the Board of Law Examiners regarding her practice of law. The court found that Braun’s claims about the extensive hours she spent on legal work while simultaneously opening and operating a new restaurant were 'inherently incredible.' Her failure to provide any corroborating evidence, such as billing records or affidavits, and the absence of traditional indicia of a law practice (e.g., malpractice insurance, separate office), supported the Board's conclusion. Furthermore, Braun’s 'cavalier attitude' in failing to report 'in kind' payments on her tax returns compounded her misrepresentations and further justified the finding that she lacked the requisite character and fitness to be an attorney.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad discretion afforded to state boards of law examiners in evaluating the character and fitness of bar applicants. It establishes that a lack of candor, evidenced by unsubstantiated and incredible claims, is a firm ground for denial, separate from the substantive requirements of comity admission. The case serves as a strong precedent that an applicant's entire presentation to the board, including the credibility of their claims and their honesty regarding ancillary matters like tax reporting, is subject to scrutiny. Future applicants are on notice that they bear a heavy burden to truthfully and verifiably document their experience, as courts are likely to defer to board findings supported by the 'whole record,' especially when an applicant's testimony is deemed incredible.
Unlock the full brief for In re Braun