Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.
****
In-State But Out of Reach: North Carolina Unable to Discipline New York Attorney
Last month, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina grappled with an attorney disciplinary issue that exposed the limitations of jurisdictional statutes drafted long before the advent of modern technology and the mobility it enables. This case highlights the growing tension between legacy legal frameworks and the evolving realities of law practice in the digitally powered remote work era.
In The North Carolina State Bar v. Musinguzi, No.COA 24-661 (2025), the defendant was an attorney licensed in New York who handled federal immigration matters in federal court in North Carolina, and had never appeared in North Carolina State courts. He was not, and had never been admitted to practice law in North Carolina. .
At the time, he lived in North Carolina and his law firm was located in Charlotte. His client base regularly included clients from North Carolina, and he maintained a trust account with Bank of America in North Carolina. The account was registered with the state’s IOLTA program as required by the North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15-2.
The North Carolina Bar filed a grievance against Musinguzi in 2017, alleging that he had insufficient funds in his North Carolina-registered IOLTA account. Although he initially responded to the grievance, he eventually began to ignore subsequent communications. As a result, on January 11, 2024, the North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission (DHC) disbarred the defendant from the practice of law on the grounds that he’d failed to participate in the North Carolina Bar’s disciplinary process.
The defendant appealed from that Order of Discipline, asserting that the State Bar and the DHC lacked sufficient jurisdiction and authority to discipline someone who was not a member of the North Carolina Bar.
In reaching its decision, the Court examined North Carolina Statute Section 84-28, which defines what it means to be a member of the State Bar of North Carolina: “The active members shall be all persons who have obtained a license or certificate, entitling them to practice law in the State of North Carolina, who have paid the membership dues specified, and who have satisfied all other obligations of membership. No person other than a member of the North Carolina State Bar shall practice in any court of the State except foreign attorneys as provided by statute and natural persons representing themselves.”
Next, it reviewed North Carolina Statute Section 84-23, which delineates the Council’s authority: “The Council is vested, as an agency of the State, the authority to regulate the professional conduct of licensed lawyers and State Bar certified paralegals…”
Based on its analysis, the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that the “North Carolina General Statute Section 84-28 limits the DHC’s disciplinary jurisdiction to attorneys admitted to practice in this State,” of which the defendant was not one.
The Court noted that its holding was limited to the facts of this case and North Carolina’s unique statutory framework: “In other states, statutes or caselaw may support subject matter jurisdiction for disciplinary action as to attorneys not licensed in those states, but we are bound by North Carolina’s statutes.”
In many respects, this conclusion runs counter to the public interest. Attorneys not licensed in North Carolina may engage in misconduct that could harm North Carolina residents without facing professional consequences from the State Bar. The strict, text-based reading of the relevant statutes leads to outcomes that increasingly clash with the realities of modern legal practice—particularly the mobility and multijurisdictional nature of today’s profession, which has been amplified by technology and evolving client expectations.
Gaps like this one will only become more consequential over time, fueled by rapid technological change, cross-border digital practices, and AI-driven legal services. In just a few years from now, the practice of law will look markedly different than it does today. Greater regulatory flexibility and revision are required, and sooner rather than later. In their absence, more cases like this will arise, where a strict reading of outdated laws undermines the public interest.
Will legislators and regulators respond appropriately, and in time to make a difference? Only time will tell.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at MyCase, CASEpeer, Docketwise, and LawPay, practice management and payment processing tools for lawyers (AffiniPay companies). She is the nationally-recognized author of “Cloud Computing for Lawyers” (2012) and co-authors “Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier” (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors “Criminal Law in New York,” a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at niki.black@mycase.com.