Title: In re Gordon
Citation: 352 N.C. 349
Docket Number: 20A00
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2000

In the Matter of: CAROLYN A. GORDON Applicant to take the 
February 1998 North Carolina Bar Examination
No. 20A00
(Filed 13 July 2000)
1.
Attorneys--Bar applicant--findings of Board--substantial evidence
Although the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners’ findings that petitioner
committed three specific acts of misconduct while licensed in California arguably conflict with
her statements at the hearing and with factual findings in the Agreement in Lieu of Discipline
(ALD) she entered into pursuant to the California Code, the whole record test reveals the trial
court did not err in upholding the Board’s decision to deny petitioner’s application for admission
to the February 1998 North Carolina Bar Exam because: (1) the Board may elect to reject in
whole or in part the statements made by any witness at the hearing; (2) the ALD contained
petitioner’s unequivocal admission that she willfully violated three Rules of Professional
Conduct, which standing alone is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of the
Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) petitioner’s testimony before the Board
and the unequivocal ALD admission also constitute substantial evidence that she committed
other alleged acts of misconduct.
2.
Attorneys--Bar applicant--character--burden of proof on applicant
The North Carolina Board of Law Examiners did not err in concluding that petitioner
failed to carry her burden of establishing that she possessed the requisite qualifications of
character and general fitness for an attorney and counselor-at-law, based on her prior acts of
misconduct while licensed in California, because: (1) petitioner admitted violating three ethical
rules when she executed an Agreement in Lieu of Discipline (ALD) in California, and her
testimony revealed she was aware that by signing the document she was bound by her admission;
(2) when questioned regarding the acts of misconduct, petitioner continued to maintain her
innocence notwithstanding her unambiguous admission in the ALD; and (3) there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that petitioner committed the three
acts of misconduct.
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 of LaBarre, J., filed 16 December 1999 in
Superior Court, Wake County, affirming the 29 October 1998 order
of the Board of Law Examiners denying petitioner’s application to
take the February 1998 North Carolina Bar Examination.  Heard in
the Supreme Court 15 May 2000.
Harry H. Harkins, Jr., for petitioner-appellant.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Robert O. Crawford,
III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-
appellee North Carolina Board of Law Examiners.
MARTIN, Justice.
Carolyn A. Gordon (petitioner) graduated from Southwestern
University School of Law in May 1990 and gained admittance to the
California State Bar (California Bar) in June 1991.  From June
1994 until April 1997, petitioner worked as in-house general
counsel for Alliance Affiliated Companies (Alliance), a group of
closely held companies which provided, among other things,
estate-planning and insurance services.  Through direct mail,
referrals, and telemarketing, Alliance offered packages of
estate-planning documents to customers for a flat fee.  As part
of Alliance’s marketing approach, a sales representative visited
the customer’s home to obtain information necessary to execute
legal documents.
In 1995 the California Bar received a complaint alleging
that petitioner had violated various provisions of the California
Business and Professions Code (California Code) and the
California Rules of Professional Conduct (California Rules).  
The California Bar reviewed these allegations and determined that
there were insufficient grounds for disciplinary action.
In July 1996 petitioner, along with her employer, Alliance,
its principals, and other in-house counsel, was named as a
defendant in a civil suit.  The plaintiffs were the People of the
State of California and the California Bar.  The plaintiffs
alleged that petitioner and the other defendants had engaged in
misleading statements, unfair competition, and the unauthorized
practice of law with respect to the marketing and preparation of
living trusts.  These alleged violations implicated various
provisions of the California Rules and the California Code.  In
April 1997 petitioner entered into a settlement agreement and was
dismissed from the lawsuit.  The settlement agreement prevented
her from suing the plaintiffs and provided that her actions were
still subject to review by the California Bar.
On 27 June 1997 petitioner entered into an “Agreement in
Lieu of Discipline” (ALD) pursuant to the California Code. 
Petitioner acknowledged within the ALD that she violated
California Rules 1-300(A), 3-110(A), and 3-310.  The ALD
contained both stipulated facts and an ultimate conclusion of law
that petitioner had violated three specific rules of professional
conduct.  The ALD required petitioner, during a two-year period,
to (1) report periodically to the probation unit of the
California Bar, (2) complete continuing legal education in legal
ethics, (3) complete the State Bar Ethics School, and (4) refrain
from specified acts.  As required, petitioner reported
periodically and attended the ethics school.  Furthermore, she
resigned from her employment with Alliance.
In August 1997 petitioner moved to North Carolina.  On
3 November 1997 she applied to the North Carolina Board of Law
Examiners (Board) to take the February 1998 North Carolina bar
examination (exam).  Petitioner was permitted to take the exam
with the results sealed, pending a determination by the Board as
to her character and fitness.
On 14 October 1998 petitioner appeared before the Board to
present evidence supporting her qualifications of character and
general fitness to practice law in North Carolina.  On 29 October
1998 the Board denied her application for admission to the exam. 
In its order, the Board waived the general waiting period of
section .0605 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of
Law in the State of North Carolina (Admission Rules) and provided
that petitioner would be eligible to take the exam once her two-
year probation period in California terminated.  Petitioner
appealed the Board’s decision to the Superior Court, Wake County.
On 16 December 1999 the trial court filed its order
affirming the Board’s order, concluding that the Board’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law were supported by competent
evidence in the record.
[1] On appeal to this Court, petitioner contends the Board
erroneously found that she had committed three acts of misconduct
and that the trial court thus erred in affirming the Board’s
order.  Specifically, petitioner argues that the Board’s findings
are contradicted by the ALD and her testimony before the Board.
This Court employs the whole record test when reviewing
decisions of the Board.  See In re Golia-Paladin, 344 N.C. 142,
149, 472 S.E.2d 878, 881 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1117, 136
L. Ed. 2d 847 (1997); In re Legg, 325 N.C. 658, 669, 386 S.E.2d
174, 180 (1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 906, 110 L. Ed. 2d 270
(1990); In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48, 64-65, 253 S.E.2d 912, 922
(1979).  Under this test there must be “substantial evidence” in
support of the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
See Golia-Paladin, 344 N.C. at 149, 472 S.E.2d at 881; Legg, 325
N.C. at 669, 386 S.E.2d at 180; In re Moore, 308 N.C. 771, 779,
303 S.E.2d 810, 815-16 (1983).  This Court has previously
determined that “substantial evidence” is “relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind . . . could accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.”  Golia-Paladin, 344 N.C. at 149, 472 S.E.2d at
881; see In re Legg, 337 N.C. 628, 636, 447 S.E.2d 353, 357
(1994); Moore, 308 N.C. at 779, 303 S.E.2d at 815-16.  “Under the
‘whole record’ test we must review all the evidence, that which
supports as well as that which detracts from the Board’s findings
. . . .”  Moore, 308 N.C. at 779, 303 S.E.2d at 815-16, quoted in
Legg, 337 N.C. at 636, 447 S.E.2d at 357.  “‘It is the function
of the Board to resolve factual disputes.’”  Moore, 308 N.C. at
780, 303 S.E.2d at 816 (quoting In re Elkins, 308 N.C. 317, 321,
302 S.E.2d 215, 217, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 995, 78 L. Ed. 2d 685
(1983)).  Furthermore, in hearings before the Board, “[t]he
initial burden of showing good character rests with the
applicant.”  Legg, 337 N.C. at 636, 447 S.E.2d at 357 (quoting
Legg, 325 N.C. at 669, 386 S.E.2d at 180); see Rogers, 297 N.C.
at 57, 253 S.E.2d at 918.  Finally, the whole record test was not
designed to allow this Court to replace the Board’s judgment with
its own when there are two reasonably conflicting views of the
evidence.  See In re Elkins, 308 N.C. 317, 321-22, 302 S.E.2d
215, 217-18, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 995, 78 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1983);
Rogers, 297 N.C. at 65, 253 S.E.2d at 923.
In the instant case the Board found that petitioner had
committed three specific acts of misconduct.  Each of the three
findings below, as found in the Board’s order, correlate to a
violation of the California Rules which petitioner admitted in
her ALD:
20.  . . . [petitioner] did willfully aid and abet
the unlawful practice of law by delegating to non-
lawyer sales representatives the authority to give
legal advice and present estate planning information
and documents to senior citizens.
. . . .
22.  . . . [petitioner] did willfully fail to
competently perform services by not properly
supervising subordinate staff personnel or monitoring
their activities or properly reviewing their work
product, resulting in the preparation of inadequate
trust documents.
. . . .
24.  . . . [petitioner] did willfully fail to
disclose to clients that a possible conflict of
interest may exist with respect to the professional
relationship which she had with the annuities
underwriters.
In its order, the Board states that it based these findings
on the legal conclusion found in the ALD and on petitioner’s
testimony before the Board.  The ALD contained both findings of
fact and an ultimate conclusion of law.  The ALD included ten
specific findings of fact which, by signing the ALD, petitioner
acknowledged to be true.  Under the conclusion of law, the ALD
contained an unequivocal admission that petitioner had violated
California Rules 1-300(A), 3-110(A), and 3-310.
Notwithstanding petitioner’s execution of the ALD, in which
she admitted wrongdoing, petitioner maintains that contradictory
evidence before the Board renders its findings of fact erroneous. 
The Board, in its order, states that petitioner “did willfully
fail to disclose to clients that a possible conflict of interest
may exist with respect to the professional relationship which she
had with the annuities underwriters.”  Petitioner notes, however,
that the ALD provides that her “only client was . . . Alliance.” 
Likewise, in her statements before the Board, petitioner
continued to profess that Alliance was her only client.
Our review of the whole record reveals that, in her
testimony before the Board, petitioner admitted that her
employer, Alliance, was a group of closely held companies which
included both an insurance company and an estate-planning
company.  Further, at the hearing, petitioner conceded that she
reported directly to the owners of Alliance, who ultimately
controlled both the insurance and the estate-planning entities. 
Likewise, she testified that a form letter in the packet of legal
documents sold to consumers of the estate-planning unit had her
signature affixed thereon and identified her as an “attorney at
law.”  Finally, the ALD that petitioner signed contained a
statement admitting violation of rule 3-310 of the California
Rules, which specifically prohibits representation of adverse
interests.
Nonetheless, we agree with petitioner that the Board’s
findings that she committed the specific acts of misconduct at
issue arguably conflict with statements made by her at the
hearing and with factual findings in the ALD.  The Board,
however, may elect to reject in whole or in part the statements
made by any witness at the hearing.  See Legg, 337 N.C. at 638,
447 S.E.2d at 358.  Moreover, as stated above, the ALD contained
the following unequivocal admission:
The [petitioner] acknowledges that . . . she wilfully
violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(A),
3-110(A) and 3-310.
This admission, standing alone, is sufficient to constitute 
“substantial evidence” in support of the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.  Therefore, based on the whole record
before us, there is “substantial evidence” to support the Board’s
findings of fact with regard to petitioner’s conflict of
interest.  This same evidence--petitioner’s testimony before the
Board and the unequivocal ALD admission--also constitutes
“substantial evidence” that petitioner committed the other
alleged acts of misconduct.
[2] Petitioner next contends the Board erroneously found
that she did not possess the requisite qualifications of
character and general fitness to practice law in North Carolina. 
Petitioner argues that, even if this Court were to find that the
Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by
substantial evidence, nothing in the record warrants the Board’s
ultimate conclusion that she was unfit to practice law in North
Carolina.  Petitioner further argues that the California Bar was
the appropriate agency to reprimand her for her alleged acts of
misconduct, all of which took place in California.  She also
notes that she was not prohibited from practicing law in
California.
Section .0601 of the Admission Rules in this State requires
every applicant to prove that he or she possesses the requisite
qualifications of good moral character and general fitness
entitling one to the high regard and confidence of the public. 
The applicant has the burden of demonstrating to the Board that
she possesses the requisite character.  See Legg, 337 N.C. at
636, 447 S.E.2d at 357; Elkins, 308 N.C. at 321, 302 S.E.2d at
217.  The Board has “‘wide freedom to gauge on a case-by-case
basis the fitness of an applicant to practice law.’”  Golia-
Paladin, 344 N.C. at 152, 472 S.E.2d at 883 (quoting In re
Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 725, 37 L. Ed. 2d 910, 917 (1973)).
When petitioner executed the ALD, she admitted  violating
three ethical rules.  Furthermore, her testimony showed that she
was aware that, by signing the document, she was bound by her
admission.  When questioned regarding the acts of misconduct,
petitioner continued to maintain her innocence notwithstanding
her unambiguous admission in the ALD.  In any event, there is
“substantial evidence” in the record to support the Board’s
determination that petitioner committed the three acts of
misconduct.  Therefore, the Board committed no error in its
conclusion that petitioner failed to carry her burden of
establishing that she possessed the requisite qualifications of
character and general fitness for an attorney and counselor-at-
law.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.