Oyez!

A drawing for a grand prize to lure in customers is something more often associated with car dealers than law firms.

But a firm in North Carolina has plans to do exactly that.

Those plans are the subject of an inquiry before the N.C. State Bar’s Ethics Committee. The filing before the committee says the firm, described only as “a large personal injury firm,” came up with the idea of holding a drawing to give away 10 Visa gift cards valued at $500 each.

It planned to send postcards to former and current clients that said the drawing was being offered “in appreciation of our clients’ trust and confidence we have received over the years.” To be eligible for the drawing, current and former clients only need to go to the “newly redesigned” website and fill out the “free evaluation form,” the postcard was to say.

Not so fast.

The State Bar’s staff has come back with a proposed opinion that says that such a drawing would violate the prohibition against giving anything of value to a client or anyone else for recommending a lawyer’s services.

The committee referred to an opinion of the Louisiana State Bar Association, holding that any gift made by a lawyer to a client should be made only as a “modest expression” of thanks or appreciation.

The firm in the inquiry before the N.C. State Bar says that it is offering clients the opportunity to participate in the drawing to show their appreciation of the clients’ trust and confidence. If the drawing were not associated with past or future referrals, it would be permissible so long as the value of the prize offered is nominal, the staff opinion says. But in this case, “the value of the offered prizes gives the drawing the appearance of a reward for past business or an incentive for future business,” according to Bar’s staff.

The Bar’s Ethics Committee is slated to consider the inquiry at a meeting in Raleigh later this week.

- By SYLVIA ADCOCK, Staff Writer

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued 33 published decisions Tuesday morning. Check our website and daily e-mail alerts throughout the week for digests of the opinions. The complete roundup of opinion digests will appear in next Monday’s paper.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued 21published decisions Tuesday morning. Check our website and daily e-mail alerts throughout the week for digests of the opinions. The complete roundup of opinion digests will appear in next Monday’s paper.

First impression

The N.C. Supreme Court upholds G.S. § 163-96(a)(2) – which allows small political parties ballot access if they obtain signatures of 2 percent of the number voters in the preceding gubernatorial election – against a constitutional challenge regarding freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Libertarian Party of North Carolina v. State.

In Kubit v. MAG Mutual Insurance, the N.C. Court of Appeals holds that the duty to defend arises when an insurer receives actual notice of the underlying action.

The N.C. Court of Appeals rules that an attorney may be liable for malicious prosecution initiated by a client, if all elements of the tort are met. Chidnese v. Chidnese.

Other noteworthy opinions

The defendant in State v. Lane read at the third-grade level and suffered from several mental disorders; nevertheless, he was competent to choose to represent himself, says the N.C. Supreme Court.

In the personal injury case of  Bain v. Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co., the N.C. Court of Appeals requires the plaintiff to pay the fees of an expert whom he hired before a counterclaim triggered his insurer’s duty to defend him.

In a complex real estate development scheme involving limited-time ground leases, a supplier loses its claims of lien on six lots: four were sold free and clear of liens, and two were foreclosed upon by a senior lienholder (the construction loan lender). The N.C. Court of Appeals says the supplier in Pete Wall Plumbing Co. v. Sandra Anderson Builders, Inc. may be able to recover on two of its notices of claims of lien if the lender advanced sums to the contractor after it received the supplier’s notices of claims of liens but before the lender foreclosed on the two lots.

The N.C. Court of Appeals finds no violation of the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act in State v. Boozer. A witness told police he had seen one of the victim’s assailants in The Slammer but could not remember his name. A police officer had the witness look through The Slammer to find the assailant’s photo.

- By TERESA BRUNO, Opinions Editor

A bill introduced in the Senate Wednesday that would allow non-lawyer ownership of a professional corporation law firm is already getting some attention from the N.C. State Bar.

The bill would allow non-lawyers to own up to 49 percent of a firm.

 Non-lawyers are banned from owning law firms by the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 5.4, and the issue was debated at last spring’s ABA meeting.

The bill in the General Assembly contains a caveat designed to make sure lawyers remember that their first duty is to their client, not to stockholders.

Stock certificates must contain language in at least 12-point type that no shareholder shall interfere with the exercise of professional judgment by licensed attorneys. The certificates must also note that if there is a conflict between duties to the court, the client and the shareholders, the court comes first, then the client and then the shareholders.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell Jr., a Republican who represents Cabarrus and Iredell Counties.

- By SYLVIA ADCOCK, Staff Writer

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued 36 published decisions Tuesday morning. Check our website and daily e-mail alerts throughout the week for digests of the opinions. The complete roundup of opinion digests will appear in next Monday’s paper.