The NC State Bar v. SuttonÂ
2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1069
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- The North Carolina State Bar filed a disciplinary complaint against attorney David C. Sutton in 2013; he practiced law from Greenville, NC.
- The Disciplinary Hearing Commission conducted adjudicatory hearings in 2014, issuing final adjudicatory findings August 2014 finding 28 Rule violations.
- The seven matters at issue spanned 2008–2014: Pollard, Langston, Gorham, Davenport, Shackley, Dolenti, and Deans, detailing disruptive, deceptive, or abusive conduct.
- Pollard matter included a hostile deposition and a website (justice4stacey.com) sponsorship/expense issues and a false sponsorship affidavit.
- Langston matter involved disrupting a deposition and two false statements to the court about corporate dissolution and settlement terms.
- Dispositional phase culminated in a five-year suspension of Sutton’s license; the Order of Discipline also noted numerous other abusive communications and pattern of misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency | State Bar contends DHC findings supported by the whole record and clear, cogent evidence. | Sutton argues some findings lack evidentiary support and some conclusions misapplied. | Findings supported; sanctions affirmed. |
| DHC authority, separation of powers and due process | State Bar and courts share concurrent jurisdiction over attorney discipline; process complied with due process. | Sutton claims DHC infringes judiciary powers and due process. | DHC authority and due process upheld. |
| First Amendment/free speech challenge to disciplinary rules | Discipline for professional conduct is compatible with state interest in regulating lawyers. | First Amendment shields attorney speech from discipline. | Discipline constitutional; speech restricted when tied to professional misconduct. |
| Adequacy of dispositional findings and sanction | DHC provided detailed dispositional findings showing harm and necessity of suspension. | Sanction overly harsh and findings insufficiently tied to sanctions. | Five-year suspension upheld; findings and reasoning adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Talford v. State Bar, 356 N.C. 626 (2003) (standard for reviewing attorney disciplinary decisions; whole-record test)
- N.C. State Bar v. Randolph, 325 N.C. 699 (1989) (concurrent jurisdiction of Bar and judiciary over attorney discipline)
- Cunningham v. Selman, 201 N.C. App. 270 (2009) (commingling Bar and court roles; treatment in disciplinary context)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (First Amendment: speech restrictions for lawyers in courtroom and related contexts)
- Went For It, Inc. v. Went For It, 515 U.S. 618 (1995) (state interest in regulating professions; breadth of disciplinary authority)
- State v. Leigh, 278 N.C. 243 (1971) (free speech limits; context for professional restrictions)