Golia-Paladin, Matter of

• Decision Date: 31 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 61A96,A,GOLIA-PALADI,61A96
• Citation: 344 N.C. 142,472 S.E.2d 878
• Parties: In the Matter of Davidppellant, Applicant to the North Carolina Bar by Comity.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 878

472 S.E.2d 878

344 N.C. 142

In the Matter of David GOLIA-PALADIN, Appellant, Applicant to the North Carolina Bar by Comity.

No. 61A96.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 31, 1996.

Loflin & Loflin by Thomas F. Loflin III, Durham, for applicant-appellant.

Michael F. Easley, Attorney General by John F. Maddrey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellee The Board of Law Examiners of State of North Carolina.

WHICHARD, Justice.

Applicant David Golia-Paladin, a 1973 graduate of Tulane School of Law, applied for admission to the North Carolina Bar by comity. He had been admitted to practice law in New York in 1978. A panel of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina ("Board") denied the application on character and fitness grounds. Following applicant's unsuccessful appeal to the full Board, he appealed the Board's determination to Superior Court, Wake County. On 27 July 1995, the Honorable Stafford Bullock entered an order affirming the Board's 25 January 1993 order. Applicant appeals to this Court, assigning as error several of the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the Board's determination that applicant does not possess the requisite character and fitness to practice law in North Carolina was supported by competent evidence and is therefore affirmed.

The Board found as a fact that applicant failed to fully and completely disclose the number of times he had applied to take a bar examination in other states. Applicant had failed to disclose that he sat for the New Mexico Bar Examination in 1973. Further, although he had registered to take the California Bar Examination twenty-four times and had failed the examination eighteen times, applicant stated in his application that he had registered "at least fifteen or sixteen times" and actually took the examination "ten or twelve times more or less."

The Board additionally determined that applicant was named as the defendant in a civil action filed in December 1987 in New York. In that action, applicant was alleged to have allowed the cellar in his Mineola, New York, office to be used or occupied as a living or sleeping area in violation of the zoning code. In an affidavit and answer, applicant disclaimed his use of the premises as a residence. However, this disclaimer was inconsistent with his response to question 6 on his North Carolina Bar application, which indicated that he had maintained a residence from June 1978 to the present at his New York address. Applicant subsequently amended his Bar application to state that he had not resided at the Mineola address from 17 December 1987 to 14 March 1988. The Board found that this amendment displayed a lack of candor. Because applicant had preexisting plans to spend the holidays in North Carolina, his departure from New York on 17 December 1987 did not interrupt or terminate his New York residency. Rather, applicant's actions amounted to a "convenient adoption of a temporary position for self-serving purposes in a legal matter rather than a genuine intention to terminate permanently his New York residence."

Finally, the Board determined that applicant had not provided copies of all relevant and material documents from a lawsuit in which he was a party. For all these reasons, the Board denied applicant's application for a license to practice law in North Carolina by comity. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that its conclusions of law were supported by the findings of fact.

Applicant initially argues that he was given inadequate notice about the nature of the questions he was to be asked at his hearing before the Board. He asserts that the notice of hearing he received failed to apprise him of the possibility that he would be accused of misleading and failing to be candid with the Board. He further contends that the notice of hearing was inadequate because it did not advise him in advance of "the specific statements the Board was alleging to be untruthful."

The notice of hearing provided that applicant had the burden of satisfying the Board that he had met all of the requirements of Section .0502 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law ("Rules") in order to be licensed by comity. The notice further stated that applicant should "be advised that inquiry can also be made about the answers to any questions set out in the application." Therefore, applicant cannot assert that the Board failed to provide him with due process due to a purported inadequacy of notice concerning the matters addressed at his full Board hearing. This assignment of error is overruled.

Applicant next contests the Board's assertion that its 1986 determination that applicant had failed to demonstrate he possessed the character and fitness required for admission to the bar was upheld by this Court in In re Golia-Paladin, 327 N.C. 132, 393 S.E.2d 799 (1990). In its 25 January 1993 order, the Board noted that in 1986, it had found that applicant failed to prove (1) that he possessed the requisite character and fitness to be admitted to the practice of law in North Carolina, and (2) that he met the practice requirements for comity admission. The Board then noted that its 1986 order "denying the Applicant's 1985 comity admission application was ultimately affirmed on appeal." In affirming the Board's denial of applicant's admission, this Court specified that its decision was based solely on applicant's failure to demonstrate that he met the practice requirements for comity admission. Id. at 136, 393 S.E.2d. at 801. Contrary to applicant's assertion, nothing in the Board's statement in its 1993 order suggests that this Court upheld the Board's previous determination that applicant was of bad character. Even if the statement had so suggested, applicant has not indicated to what relief he would be entitled. This assignment of error is overruled.

Applicant next contends that the Board erred in finding (1) that he "failed to fully disclose material matters" and "made numerous untruthful statements" about the number of times he sat for various bar examinations, and (2) that these statements had the effect of misleading and deceiving the Board. In his application for admission to the North Carolina Bar, applicant stated the number of times he had registered for and taken the California Bar Examination:

Since I first signed up for it 17 years ago, to be on the safe side, I would have to guess I have signed up for it at least 15 or 16 times, and taken it maybe ten or twelve times more or less.

At applicant's request, the California Bar notified the Board that applicant had actually registered for the California Bar Examination on twenty-four occasions and sat for the examination eighteen times. Thus, applicant contends, the Board was fully apprised of the number of times he had registered for and taken the California examination, and his statements neither misled nor deceived the Board. Applicant additionally contends that the Board incorrectly determined that he lied in 1986 when he was asked when he had taken his first bar examination. Applicant had responded, "I sat in California, I think it was, I'm not sure, '74 or '75." He corrected this answer in his present application by disclosing that he sat for the New Mexico Bar Examination in 1973.

When reviewing decisions of the Board of Law Examiners, this Court employs the whole record test. In re Legg, 325 N.C. 658, 669, 386 S.E.2d 174, 180 (1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 906, 110 S.Ct. 2589, 110 L.Ed.2d 270 (1990)....