In re Braun Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

In re Braun Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... In re Braun | 352 N.C. 327, 531 S.E.2d 213 (2000) Does an attorney’s duty of candor apply only to judicial proceedings? The court deciding In re Braun considered that very question. In December, nineteen ninety six, Nancy Braun, an attorney licensed in New York and the District of Columbia, applied for admission by comity to the North Carolina Bar. The Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in North Carolina required comity applicants to prove that they’re licensed to practice law in another state or territory of the United States and that for at least four of the six years immediately preceding their application, they’ve actively and substantially engaged in the practice of law. Between November of nineteen ninety one and November of nineteen ninety six, Braun was the co owner and operator of a restaurant called Harvest Moon Café and Catering. Braun claimed that while operating the restaurant, she performed law related functions such as obtaining a business loan, negotiating a lease, resolving landlord disputes, incorporating and later dissolving the business, and dealing with various administrative and licensing issues. Braun also claimed that during the same period, she provided legal services for employees and vendors, such as appearing in traffic court and negotiating dispute settlements. Braun didn’t charge for her various legal services but was paid in kind. Braun didn’t report these in kind payments as income for tax purposes. She also didn’t maintain a legal office separate from the restaurant, advertise her legal services, or hold herself out to the public as a practicing lawyer. Braun didn’t maintain malpractice insurance, attend continuing legal education, or maintain records of billable hours or legal activities. After a hearing, the North Carolina Board of Bar Examiners denied Braun’s application, finding that she hadn’t satisfied the rule requiring active and substantial practice of law. Further, the board found that her attempts to show that her restaurant work constituted the active and substantial practice of law showed a lack of candor and were misleading. This misleading lack of candor demonstrated a lack of character and fitness. Braun appealed to the Wake County Superior Court, which affirmed the board’s decision. Braun then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-b... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-b... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries