Title: In re Burke

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 410A14  
(Filed 21 August 2015) 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:  LYNN MARIE BURKE 
 
Appeal of right pursuant to section .1405 of the Rules Governing Admission to 
the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina from an order entered on 1 October 
2014 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in Superior Court, Wake County, affirming the 14 
May 2013 order of the Board of Law Examiners denying the applicant’s application 
to stand for the July 2011 North Carolina Bar Examination.  Heard in the Supreme 
Court on 20 April 2015. 
Robert F. Orr; and Poyner Spruill LLP, by Andrew H. Erteschik, Carrie V. 
McMillan, and J.M. Durnovich, for petitioner-appellant Lynn Marie Burke. 
 
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Senior Deputy 
Attorney General, and H. Dean Bowman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for 
respondent-appellee North Carolina Board of Law Examiners. 
 
JACKSON, Justice.  
 
In this case we consider whether the Board of Law Examiners (the Board) 
erred by concluding that petitioner Lynn Marie Burke “failed to carry her burden of 
proving she possesses the requisite general fitness and good moral character expected 
of attorneys licensed to practice law in North Carolina.”  We conclude that the Board’s 
decision is supported by substantial evidence in view of the whole record.  
Accordingly, we affirm.   
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
In May 2010, petitioner received her Juris Doctor degree from North Carolina 
Central University School of Law.  After law school, petitioner initially applied for, 
and later received, a license to practice law in Washington, D.C.  In October 2010, 
while her District of Columbia Bar application still was pending, petitioner applied 
to take the North Carolina Bar Examination.  In her North Carolina Bar application, 
petitioner disclosed forty incidents between 1983 and 2004 in which she had been 
accused of criminal offenses including forgery, larceny, shoplifting, writing worthless 
checks, using a stolen credit card, possessing stolen property, and obtaining property 
by false pretenses.  Petitioner acknowledged that many of these incidents had 
resulted in criminal convictions.   
Because of concerns about her application, the Board sent petitioner a notice 
instructing her to appear at a hearing before a panel of the Board.  The notice stated 
that during the hearing, petitioner would be asked to testify regarding the criminal 
charges that she had disclosed in her application.  In addition, the notice stated that 
petitioner would be questioned about several criminal charges that she failed to 
disclose in her applications for admission to law school, the District of Columbia Bar, 
and the North Carolina Bar.  The hearing was conducted on 28 September 2011, and 
subsequently, the panel directed petitioner to appear at a de novo hearing before the 
full Board.   
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
The de novo hearing was held on 9 and 10 January 2013.  Petitioner testified 
at the hearing in support of her application and explained that, beginning in the 
1980s, she committed a number of criminal offenses, which she characterized as being 
motivated by financial necessity.  Yet she also stated that her life started to change 
after a particular incident of shoplifting that occurred in 2002.  Petitioner testified 
that on this occasion, which occurred the day of her twin daughters’ prom, she had 
attempted to take prom dresses from a department store by concealing them in a bag.  
Petitioner stated that after she was caught and her daughters learned what she had 
done, the extent of her criminal conduct was “put in front of [her] face.”  She testified 
that subsequently, she began going to counseling and started working for her father.  
She testified that she had not stolen anything since the incident in 2002.   
Petitioner stated that she had been truthful about her criminal history when 
applying to law school, the District of Columbia Bar, and the North Carolina Bar.  
Although petitioner acknowledged that she had “neglected” to include some of her 
criminal history in her law school application and her two bar applications, she 
testified that the omissions occurred because she “just forgot.”  Petitioner stated that 
she had amended each application to correct the omissions.   
Petitioner was questioned about discrepancies between her testimony 
concerning the shoplifting incident from 2002 and two written statements she had 
drafted.  Specifically, petitioner was asked about the following statement initially 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
submitted as part of amendments to her District of Columbia and North Carolina Bar 
applications, which appeared to contain materially different facts when compared 
with her testimony: 
I was at Crabtree Valley mall with my twin daughters.  
They were going to the prom in a week.  I had their prom 
dresses in a shopping bag to take them to be hemmed at 
the tailor shop.  While I was waiting for them, I went to 
Dillard’s Department store.  I knew that they did not have 
the proper undergarments to wear under the dresses and I 
attempted to take them. . . .  [T]he store security guard . . . .  
charged me with larceny of the dresses and shoplifting of 
the undergarments.  My daughter went back later on that 
day with the receipts for the dresses and was given them 
back. 
Next, petitioner was asked about a later filing submitted to the District of Columbia 
Court of Appeals Committee on Admissions (District of Columbia Bar Committee) 
asserting that the incident occurred one day before the prom and involved the 
attempted theft of two prom dresses and shoes.  Petitioner stated that the discrepancy 
arose because she had difficulty obtaining records related to the incident.  Petitioner 
testified that the statement made in the amendments to her District of Columbia and 
North Carolina Bar applications came from memory and contained inaccurate 
details.  She stated that “it took . . . a couple of weeks” to obtain relevant documents, 
but explained that she had more complete information by the time she prepared the 
later filing submitted to the District of Columbia Bar Committee.  Although the 
revised narrative was introduced at the hearing and was part of the record before the 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
Board, petitioner acknowledged that she also “should have re-amended” her North 
Carolina Bar application to reflect the updated information.   
On 14 May 2013, the Board entered an order denying petitioner’s application.  
In its order the Board noted that petitioner had committed a substantial number of 
criminal offenses throughout the 1980s and 1990s.  The Board found that petitioner 
had failed to disclose six criminal convictions on her law school application and that 
she had received a letter of caution from the school “remind[ing]” her of her 
“obligation to provide full disclosure.”  In addition, the Board stated that petitioner 
had omitted seven criminal charges on her District of Columbia Bar application and 
six charges of failure to appear on her North Carolina Bar application.   
The Board discussed how petitioner’s accounts of the 2002 shoplifting incident 
differed.  The Board explained that in petitioner’s initial written account, she 
asserted that “she had taken the prom dresses (previously purchased) to a tailor to 
be hemmed,” and after unsuccessfully attempting to steal undergarments to go with 
the dresses, she eventually produced receipts for the dresses and had them returned 
to her.  The Board noted that this written account differed from petitioner’s testimony 
describing the event and concluded that the differences “showed a lack of candor.”   
Ultimately, the Board found by the greater weight of the evidence that 
(a) 
[Petitioner] 
failed 
to 
disclose 
on 
her 
application to North Carolina Central University School of 
Law six criminal convictions including Resisting a Public 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
Officer, four Worthless Checks, and Misdemeanor Forgery 
and Uttering, 
 
(b) 
[Petitioner] failed to disclose seven criminal 
charges on her District of Columbia Bar Application, 
 
(c) 
[Petitioner] was charged on six (6) occasions 
with Failure to Appear, 
 
(d) 
[Petitioner] failed to disclose six (6) charges of 
Failure to Appear on her North Carolina Bar Application, 
 
(e) 
[Petitioner] was charged with 40 criminal 
charges between 1983-1999, 
 
(f) 
In May 1988, [petitioner] was convicted of 
multiple felony counts of False Pretense and Obtaining 
Property by False Pretenses and placed on probation, 
 
(g) 
Within a matter of months, [petitioner] began 
shoplifting again and was arrested.  She was sentenced to 
10 years imprisonment and was incarcerated in North 
Carolina for 20 months, 
 
(h) 
In 2002, [petitioner] attempted to steal two 
prom dresses from a department store in Raleigh, North 
Carolina and was charged with Larceny.  [Petitioner] 
showed a lack of candor in her testimony regarding this 
event which differed from the way she had described the 
event in her District of Columbia Bar [A]pplication,  
 
(i) 
[Petitioner] ignored her obligations to the 
courts of North Carolina which caused her to be charged on 
six separate occasions with Failure to Appear.   
The Board concluded that “the foregoing conduct, individually and collectively, as 
well as [petitioner’s] testimony at her full Board hearing regarding these matters 
demonstrate a lack of candor and truthfulness.”  Accordingly, the Board ruled that 
petitioner had failed to carry her burden of proving that she possesses the requisite 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
general fitness and good moral character expected of North Carolina attorneys.  
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review in the Superior Court, Wake County.  
Applying the whole record test, the court found that the Board’s decision was 
supported by substantial evidence and therefore affirmed that decision.  Petitioner 
appealed to this Court as of right pursuant to section .1405 of the Rules Governing 
Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina.   
In her appeal petitioner argues that the Board’s findings and conclusions 
related to her alleged misstatements and omissions are not supported by the 
evidence.  Specifically, petitioner contends that these misstatements and omissions 
were unintentional and immaterial, and did not demonstrate a lack of candor and 
truthfulness.  We disagree. 
This Court uses the whole record test when reviewing decisions of the Board.  
In re Gordon, 352 N.C. 349, 352, 531 S.E.2d 795, 797 (2000) (citations omitted).  The 
whole record test requires this Court to evaluate all the evidence, including “that 
which supports as well as that which detracts from the Board’s findings,” and 
determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  Id. at 352, 531 S.E.2d at 797 (quoting In re Moore, 308 N.C. 771, 
779, 303 S.E.2d 810, 816 (1983)).  Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence which a 
reasonable mind . . . could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  Id. at 352, 
531 S.E.2d at 797 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Golia-Paladin, 344 N.C. 142, 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
149, 472 S.E.2d 878, 881 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1117, 117 S. Ct. 962, 136 L. 
Ed. 2d 847 (1997)).   
“Good moral character has many attributes, but none are more important than 
honesty and candor.”  In re Legg, 325 N.C. 658, 672, 386 S.E.2d 174, 182 (1989) 
(quoting In re Green, 464 A.2d 881, 885 (Del. 1983) (per curiam)), cert. denied, 496 
U.S. 906, 110 S. Ct. 2589, 110 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1990).  “Testimony that is contradictory, 
inconsistent, or inherently incredible is a sufficient basis upon which to deny 
admission on character grounds.”  In re Braun, 352 N.C. 327, 335, 531 S.E.2d 213, 
218 (2000) (citing In re Elkins, 308 N.C. 317, 326, 302 S.E.2d 215, 220, cert. denied, 
464 U.S. 995, 104 S. Ct. 490, 78 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1983)).  Similarly, “[m]aterial false 
statements can be sufficient to show the applicant lacks the requisite character and 
general fitness for admission to the Bar.”  In re Legg, 325 N.C. at 672, 386 S.E.2d at 
182 (quoting In re Elkins, 308 N.C. at 327, 302 S.E.2d at 221).  In the case sub judice 
the Board concluded that petitioner had failed to carry her burden of demonstrating 
that she possesses the requisite character for admission, partly because of her past 
criminal conduct and partly because of numerous misstatements and omissions that 
were revealed by the evidence.  The evidence establishes that petitioner submitted 
inaccurate accounts of the 2002 shoplifting incident to both the Board and the District 
of Columbia Bar Committee.   Her initial narrative contained specific but inaccurate 
details, such as taking the prom dresses to be hemmed, being falsely accused of 
shoplifting the dresses, and having the dresses later returned to her.  Subsequently, 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
petitioner submitted to the District of Columbia Bar Committee a revised statement 
asserting that the incident occurred on the night before the prom and that she stole 
prom dresses and shoes, while in her North Carolina Bar application, petitioner 
stated that the incident happened a week before the prom.  Petitioner acknowledged 
that she “should have re-amended” her North Carolina Bar application to reflect this 
revised statement.  Finally, during her testimony before the Board, petitioner stated 
that the incident occurred both on the day of the prom and the night before.  When 
she was asked “exactly” what she attempted to take, she responded, “It was the 
dresses,” and when asked whether she attempted to take “[a]nything else,” she said, 
“No.”  These three accounts each differ significantly with respect to factual details 
such as when the incident occurred and what was taken.  The Board did not err by 
considering petitioner’s testimony and other statements and concluding that she 
demonstrated “a lack of candor.”   
Moreover, “a purposeful pattern of omitted material information” can support 
a conclusion that an applicant has failed to establish the good moral character 
required to practice law.  In re Legg, 325 N.C. at 672, 386 S.E.2d at 182.  Here 
petitioner omitted multiple criminal charges when preparing her law school 
application, District of Columbia Bar application, and North Carolina Bar 
application.  On 9 September 2008, petitioner sent a letter to Dean Raymond Pierce 
of North Carolina Central University School of Law stating that she had discovered 
that she had omitted six criminal convictions from her law school application and 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-10- 
requesting to amend her application.  These convictions were for resisting a public 
officer, writing worthless checks, and misdemeanor forgery and uttering.  She 
received a letter of caution from the University dated 13 May 2009 “as a reminder of 
[her] obligation to provide full disclosure.”  This letter specifically warned petitioner 
that the omissions in her law school application “might be perceived as a willingness 
to withhold or omit information that is not favorable to [her], in circumstances in 
which complete candor is required.”   
Nevertheless, in May 2010, when she applied for admission to the District of 
Columbia Bar, petitioner again omitted seven criminal charges including resisting a 
public officer, writing worthless checks, and obtaining property by false pretenses.  A 
charge related to the shoplifting incident from 2002 also was omitted.  Petitioner 
amended her application to correct these omissions in a filing dated 11 January 2011, 
which noted that the omissions were “brought to [her] attention . . . by the Board of 
NC Bar Examiners” on 5 January 2011.  Finally, in a filing dated 19 January 2011, 
petitioner amended her North Carolina Bar application to include six charges of 
failure to appear.  Petitioner stated that she omitted these charges from her initial 
application because she “did not consider” charges of failure to appear that arose from 
traffic offenses.  Ultimately, the evidence establishes omissions of multiple criminal 
charges in three separate applications, even though petitioner previously had 
received a letter emphasizing the importance of full disclosure.   
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-11- 
The Board considered the evidence in the record as a whole and concluded that 
petitioner had demonstrated “a lack of candor and truthfulness.”  This Court will not 
“replace the Board’s judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even 
though the [C]ourt could justifiably have reached a different result had the matter 
been before it de novo.”  In re Elkins, 308 N.C. at 322, 302 S.E.2d at 217-18 (quoting 
Thompson v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977)).  
“As long as the Board does not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous manner, 
it has, as an instrument of the State, ‘wide freedom to gauge on a case-by-case basis 
the fitness of an applicant to practice law.’ ”  In re Braun, 352 N.C. at 335, 531 S.E.2d 
at 218 (quoting In re Golia-Paladin, 344 N.C. at 152, 472 S.E.2d at 883).  Applying 
the whole record test, we conclude that petitioner’s past conduct, her contradictory 
statements about the shoplifting incident in 2002, her acknowledgment that she 
“should have re-amended” her North Carolina Bar application after learning that she 
had submitted incorrect information to the Board, and her numerous omissions from 
law school and bar applications support the Board’s conclusion.  Accordingly, 
petitioner’s argument is without merit.   
Next, petitioner argues that the Board’s Guidelines for Determining Character 
and Fitness of Bar Applicants require the Board to consider “evidence of 
rehabilitation.”  Petitioner contends that the Board failed to make any findings of fact 
regarding whether she had demonstrated rehabilitation.  “Administrative agencies 
must find facts when factual issues are presented.”  In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48, 56, 253 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-12- 
S.E.2d 912, 918 (1979).  Even so, “[i]n cases in which all the essential facts either 
appear on the face of the application or are otherwise indisputably established, the 
Board need only weigh the evidence and determine whether the applicant has shown 
his good moral character.”  Id. at 56, 253 S.E.2d at 917.  In In re Rogers this Court 
explained that the Board erred by failing to make findings of fact because, given the 
evidence presented, “[t]he Board could have found that [the applicant] had not shown 
his good moral character only if it believed” that he had committed two specific 
wrongful acts, which he denied.  Id. at 60, 253 S.E.2d at 920.  But in the case sub 
judice counsel for petitioner stated at the hearing that “the facts in this case are not 
in dispute.”  Similarly, counsel for the Board did not dispute petitioner’s assertion 
that she had turned her life around and subsequently “has done remarkable things 
in her life.”  The Board made proper findings describing both petitioner’s past conduct 
and her present failure to provide full and accurate disclosure in her law school and 
bar applications, weighed all the evidence, and reached a decision.  The Board did not 
err by declining to make specific findings about rehabilitation when its ultimate 
decision was based upon “an exercise of delicate judgment” after evaluating 
undisputed evidence.  Id. at 56, 253 S.E.2d at 917 (quoting Schware v. Bd. of Bar 
Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 248, 77 S. Ct. 752, 761, 1 L. Ed. 2d 796, 807 (1957) 
(Frankfurter, Clark & Harlan, JJ., concurring)).  Accordingly, petitioner’s argument 
on this issue is also without merit. 
IN RE BURKE 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-13- 
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Superior Court, Wake 
County, which affirmed the Board’s 14 May 2013 decision denying petitioner’s 
application to stand for the July 2011 North Carolina Bar Examination.     
AFFIRMED.