Ga. Lawyers Indicted for Advising
N.C. College
Atlanta attorneys, firm accused
of unauthorized practice of law
Jonathan
Ringel
Fulton
County Daily Report
04-08-2004

A North Carolina grand jury has indicted
Atlanta lawyers F. Edwin Hallman Jr. and H. King Buttermore III -- along
with their firm, Decker, Hallman, Barber & Briggs -- for the unauthorized
practice of law.
Cleveland County District Attorney
William C. Young said the misdemeanor charges could result in probated
sentences for Hallman and Buttermore and an order that the firm return
fees paid by Gardner-Webb University, a 3,500-student Baptist school in
Boiling Springs, N.C.
While a bitter internal dispute
at the university seems to have prompted the charges, the action raises
the question of how far law firms can go in serving clients in states where
they are not members of the bar.
The firm in 2002 conducted an
investigation that largely cleared M. Christopher White, Gardner-Webb's
president, of wrongdoing for ordering that a basketball player's grade
point average be recalculated in a way that made the student eligible for
the season. The firm's report, however, led the school's board of trustees
to reassign two faculty members who had been critical of White's actions
-- moves that led several faculty members to resign in protest. White later
resigned.
The National Collegiate Athletic
Association last month cited White's grade change order, among other things,
in its decision to put Gardner-Webb on a three-year probation.
In response to calls to Hallman
and Buttermore, the firm issued a statement to the Daily Report declaring
that its lawyers conducted interviews and provided a report to the board
of trustees at the school -- but did not practice law.
"It is difficult for us to understand
what is motivating these actions against us," the statement read. "If former
university employees, or those unhappy with the steps taken by the Board
of Trustees, are disgruntled and seeking some form of retribution against
this firm, their ire is misguided."
THE CHIEF ACCUSER
Decker Hallman's chief accuser
is O. Max Gardner III, 58, a former Gardner-Webb trustee and a bankruptcy
attorney in Shelby, N.C. His brother, John M. Gardner, a former trial judge,
was one of the faculty members who left in protest after the board reassigned
White's critics. Both are grandsons of the school's namesakes, former North
Carolina Gov. O. Max Gardner and his wife, Fay Webb Gardner.
In telephone interviews this week,
Max Gardner said he "was not impressed at all" by the Decker Hallman report.
He said he filed a complaint against
the firm with the North Carolina State Bar and copied it to the district
attorney because he objected to the lawyers' "aggressive tactics" against
critics of the trustees and White. He also said it is a lawyer's duty to
report the unauthorized practice of law.
Hallman, 58, is a graduate of
the University of Georgia School of Law and is a former regional counsel
of the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia,
but not of North Carolina. Buttermore, 59, is a graduate of Vanderbilt
University School of Law, a former dean of student life at Georgia State
University, and a member of the Tennessee and Georgia bars, but not North
Carolina.
Gardner cited letters sent by
Decker Hallman lawyers to critics of White and the trustees that he said
show the lawyers' unauthorized practice of law in North Carolina.
The firm became a villain to some
by representing the trustees who had retained White and reassigned the
faculty critics.
Philip C. Williams, one of the
faculty members who was reassigned after the firm presented its report,
wrote in a response published on the Web, "It is clear the attorneys were
biased" against White's critics.
The lawyers' letters defending
their report and their representation ultimately became evidence that Gardner
used against the firm. One letter by Hallman tells a critic that, "As attorneys
for the University, we have a duty to respond to the University's concerns.
... We represent the University. ... We stand by our legal advice given
to the Trustees."
Gardner acknowledged that a lawyer's
national business opens up a gray area when he has clients in a state where
he doesn't have a license. But referring to the letters cited in his complaint,
he said, "That's definitely practicing law."
LETTER OF CAUTION SENT
The North Carolina State Bar's
Authorized Practice Committee appeared to agree. On July 31, it issued
a "Letter of Caution" to Thomas J. Dimmock, a Raleigh, N.C., lawyer who
represented Hallman, Buttermore and the firm before the committee.
The letter said the firm's report
to the university went beyond an investigation into the alleged NCAA and
school violations and "also outlined and advised the Board concerning the
University's potential legal liabilities."
The caution letter cited other
letters and communications in which Hallman or Buttermore provided legal
assessments for the trustees.
"It is the unauthorized practice
of law for any persons other than licensed members of the North Carolina
State Bar to practice law in the State of North Carolina," the letter said.
"The practice of law includes preparation of legal documents, engaging
in legal advice or counsel, acting as attorney, or furnishing the services
as an attorney. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-2.1 & 4.
"Your clients held themselves
out as attorneys for the University, both to the Board of Trustees and
to outside parties," the letter continued. "The Committee concluded that
the conduct of your clients constituted the unauthorized practice of law
in violation of these statutes."
PUNISHING OUT-OF-STATE LAWYERS
Legal ethics experts said that
it's not uncommon for laypeople pretending to be lawyers to suffer criminal
penalties for practicing law without a license. But they said it's rare
for members of the bar in one state to get in trouble -- not to mention
be indicted -- for working in another state.
Litigators usually get temporary
permission to practice law in another state from judges handling a particular
case. And in legal proceedings that take place out of court, the issue
does not come up very often, the experts added, noting that definitions
about what "practicing law" means can be vague.
"I think a lot of it goes on,
and no one does anything about it," said Paul Haskell, who teaches professional
responsibility at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
But given the North Carolina Bar's
letter of caution regarding Decker Hallman, Haskell added, "They got them
dead to rights."
Perhaps. But the North Carolina
State Bar's "Lawyer Handbook" offers a vague definition of a letter of
caution. It states that the committee has the power to issue a letter of
caution "in cases wherein probable cause is not established but the activities
of the respondent are deemed to be inappropriate ... ."
D. Erik Albright of Smith Moore,
which is now representing Decker Hallman, declined comment, except to refer
to the firm's statement.
That statement denied the lawyers
practiced law in North Carolina, stating that the trustees "had separate
local counsel available and present at the time of all meetings to advise
it on legal issues in North Carolina law."
The university's local counsel,
Fred A. Flowers of Shelby, N.C.'s Flowers, Martin, Moore & Ditz, could
not be reached to discuss the case. David A. Johnson, deputy counsel to
the North Carolina Bar, said the authorized practice committee sends about
100 caution letters a year -- but only about 10 go to out-of-state lawyers
for allegedly practicing in North Carolina.
He summarizes a letter of caution
like this: "Basically it says, don't do it again."
The indictments were handed down
by the Cleveland County grand jury on March 15, but the next move is hard
to predict as neither Young, the district attorney, nor Albright, the firm's
defense attorney, will discuss the case.
IN TROUBLE IN GEORGIA?
Hallman and Buttermore's fate
in Georgia is unclear as well. Paula J. Frederick, the Georgia Bar's deputy
general counsel, said Georgia lawyers who get in trouble in other jurisdictions
can be investigated by this state's bar.
"Sometimes they do, and sometimes
they don't," said Frederick of the bar's investigative panel. She said
sometimes the panel decides that the lawyers have been "punished enough"
in the other jurisdiction.
She acknowledged that the definition
of "practicing law" can be tricky, noting that the Georgia Supreme Court
is weighing whether to adopt an American Bar Association recommendation.
It would absolve out-of-state lawyers who do temporary work in another
state as long as they don't set up a permanent practice in the other state.
Steven J. Kaczkowski, the Georgia
Bar counsel who handles unauthorized practice of law issues, said the question
is controlled by O.C.G.A. § 15-19-50, which states that practicing
law includes "the giving of any legal advice."
Given that definition, Kaczkowski
said, "Every case is different." |