Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g) intentionally prejudice or damage his or her client during the course of the professional relationship, except as may be required by Rule 3.3.
 Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf. Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client or, in the case of a government lawyer, investigatory personnel, of action the client, or such investigatory personnel, is lawfully entitled to take.
 Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on a lawyer's fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation. A lawyer's dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation is not mitigated by virtue of the fact that the victim may be the lawyer's partner or law firm. A lawyer who steals funds, for instance, is guilty of a serious disciplinary violation regardless of whether the victim is the lawyer's employer, partner, law firm, client, or a third party.
 The purpose of professional discipline for misconduct is not punishment, but to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. Lawyer discipline affects only the lawyer's license to practice law. It does not result in incarceration. For this reason, to establish a violation of paragraph (b), the burden of proof is the same as for any other violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct: it must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the lawyer committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Conviction of a crime is conclusive evidence that the lawyer committed a criminal act although, to establish a violation of paragraph (b), it must be shown that the criminal act reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. If it is established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that a lawyer committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, the lawyer may be disciplined for a violation of paragraph (b) although the lawyer is never prosecuted or is acquitted or pardoned for the underlying criminal act.
 A showing of actual prejudice to the administration of justice is not required to establish a violation of paragraph (d). Rather, it must only be shown that the act had a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing the administration of justice. For example, in State Bar v. DuMont, 52 N.C. App. 1, 277 S.E.2d 827 (1981), modified on other grounds, 304 N.C. 627, 286 S.E.2d 89 (1982), the defendant was disciplined for advising a witness to give false testimony in a deposition even though the witness corrected his statement prior to trial. Conduct warranting the imposition of professional discipline under paragraph (d) is characterized by the element of intent or some other aggravating circumstance. The phrase “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” in paragraph (d) should be read broadly to proscribe a wide variety of conduct, including conduct that occurs outside the scope of judicial proceedings. In State Bar v. Jerry Wilson, 82 DHC 1, for example, a lawyer was disciplined for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice after forging another individual’s name to a guarantee agreement, inducing his wife to notarize the forged agreement, and using the agreement to obtain funds.
 Threats, bullying, harassment, and other conduct serving no substantial purpose other than to intimidate, humiliate, or embarrass anyone associated with the judicial process including judges, opposing counsel, litigants, witnesses, or court personnel violate the prohibition on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When directed to opposing counsel, such conduct tends to impede opposing counsel’s ability to represent his or her client effectively. Comments “by one lawyer tending to disparage the personality or performance of another...tend to reduce public trust and confidence in our courts and, in more extreme cases, directly interfere with the truth-finding function by distracting judges and juries from the serious business at hand.” State v. Rivera, 350 N.C. 285, 291, 514 S.E.2d 720, 723 (1999). See Rule 3.5, cmt.  and Rule 4.4, cmt. .
 A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.
 Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 84-23
Adopted by the Supreme Court: July 24, 1997
Amendments Approved by the Supreme Court: March 1, 2003; March 5, 2015; September 28, 2017
Ethics Opinion Notes
CPR 110. An attorney may not advise a client to seek Dominican divorce knowing that the client will return immediately to North Carolina and continue residence.
CPR 168. An attorney may file personal bankruptcy.
CPR 188. An attorney may not draw deeds or other legal instruments based on land surveys made by unregistered land surveyors.
CPR 342. An attorney should not close a loan where the transaction is conditioned by the lender upon the placement of title insurance with a particular company.
CPR 369. An attorney may close a loan if the lender merely suggests rather than requires the placement of title insurance with a particular company.
RPC 127. Opinion rules that deliberate release of settlement proceeds without satisfying conditions precedent is dishonest and unethical.
RPC 136. Opinion rules that a lawyer may notarize documents which are to be used in legal proceedings in which the lawyer appears.
RPC 143. Opinion rules that a lawyer who represents or has represented a member of the city council may represent another client before the council.
RPC 152. Opinion rules that the prosecutor and the defense attorney must see that all material terms of a negotiated plea are disclosed in response to direct questions concerning such matters when pleas are entered in open court.
RPC 159. Opinion rules that an attorney may not participate in the resolution of a civil dispute involving allegations against a psychotherapist of sexual involvement with a patient if the settlement is conditioned upon the agreement of the complaining party not to report the misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority.
RPC 162. Opinion rules that an attorney may not communicate with the opposing party's nonparty treating physician about the physician's treatment of the opposing party unless the opposing party consents.
RPC 171. Opinion rules that it is not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to tape record a conversation with an opposing lawyer without disclosure to the opposing lawyer.
RPC 180. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not passively listen while the opposing party's nonparty treating physician comments on his or her treatment of the opposing party unless the opposing party consents.
RPC 192. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not listen to an illegal tape recording made by his client nor may he use the information on the illegal tape recording to advance his client's case.
RPC 197. Opinion rules that a prosecutor must notify defense counsel, jail officials, or other appropriate persons to avoid the unnecessary detention of a criminal defendant after the charges against the defendant have been dismissed by the prosecutor.
RPC 204. Opinion rules that it is prejudicial to the administration of justice for a prosecutor to offer special treatment to individuals charged with traffic offenses or minor crimes in exchange for a direct charitable contribution to the local school system.
RPC 221. Opinion rules that absent a court order or law requiring delivery of physical evidence of a crime to the authorities, a lawyer for a criminal defendant may take possession of evidence that is not contraband in order to examine, test, or inspect the evidence. The lawyer must return inculpatory physical evidence that is not contraband to the source and advise the source of the legal consequences pertaining to the possession or destruction of the evidence.
RPC 236. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not issue a subpoena containing misrepresentations as to the pendency of an action, the date or location of a hearing, or a lawyer's authority to obtain documentary evidence.
RPC 243. Opinion rules that it is prejudicial to the administration of justice for a prosecutor to threaten to use his discretion to schedule a criminal trial to coerce a plea agreement from a criminal defendant.
98 Formal Ethics Opinion 2. Opinion rules that a lawyer may explain the effect of service of process to a client but may not advise a client to evade service of process.
98 Formal Ethics Opinion 19. Opinion provides guidelines for a lawyer representing a client with a civil claim that also constitutes a crime.
99 Formal Ethics Opinion 2. Opinion rules that a defense lawyer may suggest that the records custodian of plaintiff's medical record deliver the medical record to the lawyer's office in lieu of an appearance at a noticed deposition provided the plaintiff's lawyer consents.
2000 Formal Ethics Opinion 8. Opinion rules that a lawyer acting as a notary must follow the law when acknowledging a signature on a document.
2001 Formal Ethics Opinion 12. Opinion rules that a closing lawyer may not counsel or assist a client to affix excess excise tax stamps on an instrument for registration with the register of deeds.
2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 5. Opinion rules that neither a defense lawyer nor a prosecutor may participate in the misrepresentation of a criminal defendant's prior record level in a sentencing proceeding even if the judge is advised of the misrepresentation and does not object.
2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 11. Opinion rules that a lawyer must deal honestly with the members of her former firm when dividing a legal fee.
2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 3. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not threaten to report an opposing party or a witness to immigration officials to gain an advantage in civil settlement negotiations.
2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 2. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not take possession of a client's contraband if possession is itself a crime and, unless there is an exception allowing disclosure of confidential information, the lawyer may not disclose confidential information relative to the contraband.
2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 3. Opinion rules a lawyer may assist a pro se litigant by drafting pleadings and giving advice without making an appearance in the proceeding and without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of his assistance to the court unless required to do so by law or court order.
2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 4. Opinion rules that a lawyer may issue a subpoena in compliance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which authorizes a subpoena for the production of documents to the lawyer's office without the need to schedule a hearing, deposition or trial.
2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 14. Opinion rules that it is not an ethical violation when a lawyer fails to attribute or obtain consent when incorporating into his own brief, contract, or pleading excerpts from a legal brief, contract, or pleading written by another lawyer. .
2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 15. Opinion rules that, provided the agreement does not constitute the criminal offense of compounding a crime and is not otherwise illegal, and does not contemplate the fabrication, concealment, or destruction of evidence, a lawyer may participate in a settlement agreement of a civil claim that includes a non-reporting provision prohibiting the plaintiff from reporting the defendant's conduct to law enforcement authorities.
2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 2. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not serve an out of state health care provider with an unenforceable North Carolina subpoena and may not use documents produced pursuant to such a subpoena.
2010 Formal Ethics Opinion 14. Opinion rules that it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to select another lawyer's name as a keyword for use in an Internet search engine company's search-based advertising program.
2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 9 . Opinion rules that a lawyer may not allow a person who is not employed by or affiliated with the lawyer’s firm to use firm letterhead.
2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 12. Opinion rules that a lawyer must notify the court when a clerk of court mistakenly dismisses a client’s charges.
2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 5. Opinion rules that a lawyer representing an employer must evaluate whether email messages an employee sent to and received from the employee’s lawyer using the employer’s business email system are protected by the attorney-client privilege and, if so, decline to review or use the messages unless a court determines that the messages are not privileged.
2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 10. Opinion rules a lawyer may not participate as a network lawyer for a company providing litigation or administrative support services for clients with a particular legal/business problem unless certain conditions are satisfied.
2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 7. Opinion rules that a lawyer may provide a foreign entity or individual with a North Carolina subpoena accompanied by a statement/letter explaining that the subpoena is not enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction, the recipient is not required to comply with the subpoena, and the subpoena is being provided solely for the recipient’s records.
2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 8. Opinion rules that a lawyer may accept an invitation from a judge to be a "connection" on a professional networking website, and may endorse a judge. However, a lawyer may not accept a legal skill or expertise endorsement or a recommendation from a judge.
2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 9. Opinion rules that a private lawyer may supervise an investigation involving misrepresentation if done in pursuit of a public interest and certain conditions are satisfied.
2018 Formal Ethics Opinion 5. Opinion reviews a lawyer’s professional responsibilities when seeking access to a person’s profile, pages, and posts on a social network to investigate a client’s legal matter.
2019 Formal Ethics Opinion 4. Opinion discusses the permissibility of various types of communications between lawyers and judges.
2021 Formal Ethics Opinion 4. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not take possession of photographs portraying a minor engaged in sexual activity.
2023 Formal Ethics Opinion 2. Opinion rules that a confidentiality clause contained in a settlement agreement that restricts a lawyer’s ability to practice law violates Rule 5.6.