Court Opinion

ID: 9569501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:14:23.011521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:01:28.010855
License: Public Domain

Judge Timmons-Goodson
concurs in part and dissents in part.
I agree with the majority that plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants and the Disciplinary Hearing Commission (“DHC”) of the North Carolina State Bar for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress were properly dismissed. *51However, I do not agree that plaintiffs claim against the DHC for negligent infliction of emotional distress was barred by the public duty doctrine and properly dismissed. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion which affirms the Industrial Commission’s dismissal of that claim.
The majority asserts that the General Assembly intended to vest the DHC with criminal contempt powers. I disagree and, like Judge McClelland, am unable to detect any statutory authority which would allow the DHC to punish by contempt a disbarred attorney for the unauthorized practice of law. Therefore, in my opinion, the DHC is subject to liability because it clearly acted beyond its authority.
The duties of the DHC are delegated to it by the Council of the North Carolina State Bar (“Council”). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-28.1(b) (1995). The Council is “vested . . . with the authority to regulate the professional conduct of licensed attorneys.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-23 (1995). Therefore, it is clear that the authority of the DHC extends only to licensed attorneys. The DHC may not exceed that authority which has been granted to it by the Council. The power of the DHC to “hold persons, firms or corporations in contempt as provided in Chapter 5A” does not apply to non-lawyers. N.C.G.S. § 28.1(bl).
In addition, a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation is that a particular statute controls over a general one. Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966).
Where one statute deals with a subject in detail with reference to a particular situation . . . and another statute deals with the same subject in general and comprehensive terms . . . , the particular statute will be construed as controlling in the particular situation unless it clearly appears that the General Assembly intended to make the general act controlling in regard thereto.
State v. Leeper, 59 N.C. App. 199, 202, 296 S.E.2d 7, 9, disc. review denied, 307 N.C. 272, 299 S.E.2d 218 (1982).
Therefore, even if N.C.G.S. § 84-37 is construed to be in conflict with N.C.G.S. § 84-28.l(bl), the former is controlling. Section 84-37 specifically addresses the issue of the unauthorized practice of law. Section 84-28.1(bl), on the other hand, is a generalized statement regarding the DHC’s power to hold people, firms or corporations in contempt. As section 84-37 makes reference to the particular situation in issue, the DHC must comply with the mandate that actions to enjoin unauthorized practice be brought in superior court:
*52The venue for actions brought under this section shall be the superior court of any county in which the acts constituting unauthorized or unlawful practice of law are alleged to have been committed or in which there appear reasonable grounds that they will be committed or in the county where the defendants in the action reside or in Wake County.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84~37(c) (1995) (emphasis added).
The DHC acted improperly in holding plaintiff in contempt in a forum other than superior court. Therefore, the DHC was not acting pursuant to a statutory duty, and the public purpose doctrine does not shield it from liability for its negligent acts.
Taking all the allegations and averments of plaintiffs complaint and amended complaint as true, and liberally construing those allegations and averments, I believe the allegations are sufficient to support the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Accordingly, I would reverse the Industrial Commission’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against the DHC and in all other regards affirm.