In re Suttles Surveying, P.A., 227 N.C. App. 70

Appellant Kenneth Suttles and his surveying firm Suttles Surveying, P.A. appealed a Board decision suspending the license for six months and reprimanding the firm.
Smith and Revis engaged in a boundary dispute; Piercy contacted Appellant to obtain surveying work and the disputed boundary was to be established.
A dispute arose over fees; Appellant claimed a $3,000–$4,000 starting quote with time-and-materials billing, while Smith asserted a lower overall amount.
A settlement with a confidentiality provision was reached between Smith, Piercy, and Appellant, and Smith and Piercy agreed to dismiss or refrain from pursuing complaints.
Appellant provided Piercy with a map marked Preliminary Plat Only Not for Conveyance; Piercy recorded the map despite incomplete completion and known limitations.
The Board eventually disciplined Appellant for conduct related to professional ethics, public safety, and the improper recording of a preliminary plat, leading to the suspension and reprimand; the trial court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board acted within statutory authority	Suttles contends the Board adjudicated a purely contractual dispute.	Board asserts disciplinary authority over professional conduct affects public welfare.	Board acted within statutory authority.
Whether due process was violated by settlement and Preliminary Plat	Suttles argues inadequate notice and safeguards against confidential settlements and premature plat marking.	Board maintains statutes require cooperation and proper conduct; no due process violation.	No due process violation; conduct violated professional rules.
Whether Board's conclusions on professional conduct were supported	Suttles argues findings rest on contractual issues rather than ethical standards.	Board properly tied conduct to professional rules and public safety.	Board's disciplinary conclusions upheld.

Blaylock Grading Co. v. Smith, 189 N.C. App. 508, 658 S.E.2d 680 (2008) (contract disputes between private parties not implicating public health)
In re Magee, 87 N.C. App. 650, 362 S.E.2d 564 (1987) (procedural due process in administrative context)
In re Wilkins, 294 N.C. 528, 242 S.E.2d 829 (1978) (vagueness standard for professional conduct rules)
N.C. State Bar v. McLaurin, 169 N.C. App. 144, 609 S.E.2d 491 (2005) (scope of board disciplinary authority and standards)
White v. N.C. State Bd. of Examiners of Practicing Psychologists, 97 N.C. App. 144, 388 S.E.2d 148 (1990) (due process and professional regulation standards)
State ex rel. Comm’nr of Ins. v. N.C. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 269 S.E.2d 547 (1980) (agency authority and public-interest regulation)