Attorneys – Order of Discipline – Misconduct – Rules of Professional Conduct – Mortgage Fraud – Tax Withholding – Trust Accounting

The Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar failed to consider defendant attorney’s commission of multiple felonies and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings in imposing the appropriate discipline.

We vacated the portion of the order of discipline suspending defendant’s law license and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant appealed, and plaintiff the North Carolina State Bar cross-appealed, from an order of discipline entered by the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar (DHC) suspending defendant’s law license for five years and allowing him to seek a stay of the balance of the suspension after three years if he complies with certain conditions.

Defendant was the sole owner of The Key Law Office, where he employed several employees from 2016 to 2020, including himself. During this period, defendant committed several tax-related crimes in his capacity as owner of The Key Law Office and in his individual capacity. After a hearing, the DHC entered an order of discipline suspending defendant’s law license for five years and allowing him to seek a stay of the balance of the suspension after three years if he complies with certain conditions.

Among other things, defendant argued on appeal that the DHC erred by concluding that he engaged in any sort of misconduct and the DHC erred by finding that he committed multiple tax-related crimes. We held that the DHC did not err by concluding that defendant committed multiple tax-related crimes in his capacity as owner of The Key Law Office and in his individual capacity. Defendant next argued that the DHC erred by concluding that he failed to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding his trust account; that the DHC erred by concluding that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding his representation of T.M.; that the DHC erred by concluding that he committed mortgage fraud, and that his case should not have proceeded to the disposition phase because “the DHC should not have found against [him] during the adjudication phase.” We held that the DHC did not err by concluding that defendant engaged in misconduct and that the DHC did not err by proceeding to the disposition phase to determine the appropriate discipline.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part; vacated and remanded in part.

The North Carolina State Bar v. Key (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-149-24, 64 pp.) (Allegra Collins., J.) Appealed from the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar. The North Carolina State Bar, by Interim Counsel Carmen H. Bannon and Deputy Counsel Savannah B. Perry, for plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant; Mark A. Key, Pro se, defendant-appellant/cross-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals