## Facts

- Nancy E. Braun graduated from law school in 1988 and was admitted to practice in New York (1989) and the District of Columbia (1991).
- From 1988 to 1991, Braun worked as an associate attorney at two Buffalo, New York law firms.
- In 1991, Braun became a co-owner and operator of a restaurant business in Buffalo, New York, and devoted most of her time to that enterprise for several years.
- In December 1996, Braun applied for admission to the North Carolina Bar by comity under the Rules Governing Admission to Practice Law in North Carolina.
- Braun asserted that during her restaurant ownership she was “actively and substantially” practicing law through business-related legal work (e.g., loans, contract and lease negotiations, disputes) and by providing limited legal assistance to others.
- The North Carolina Board of Law Examiners found indicators inconsistent with an active law practice, including no separate law office, no formal billing records, no advertising, no malpractice insurance, and no reporting of legal-services income on tax returns.
- After hearings before a panel and then the full Board, the Board denied the application on two independent grounds: failure to prove the required “active and substantial practice” period and lack of “character and general fitness,” based largely on findings that Braun’s descriptions and responses were misleading and lacked candor.
- The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s denial.
- On appeal, Braun challenged only the character-and-fitness determination, not the separate denial based on the active-practice requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s findings on character and general fitness were sufficiently specific to permit meaningful judicial review.
2. Whether competent evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that Braun lacked the requisite character and general fitness for comity admission, and whether the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or under an error of law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment affirming the Board’s denial of Braun’s comity application.
- The court held the Board’s character-and-fitness findings were adequately detailed and not impermissibly vague.
- The court held competent evidence supported the Board’s determination that Braun lacked the requisite character and general fitness, including findings of misleading responses and lack of candor.
- Because Braun did not appeal the Board’s independent conclusion that she failed the “active and substantial practice” requirement, the court confined review to character and fitness and treated the active-practice issue as waived.

## Legal Principles

- In bar admissions, the Board of Law Examiners is the primary fact-finder and may assess witness credibility and demeanor.
- Judicial review does not reweigh evidence; it examines whether findings are supported by competent evidence and whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or affected by legal error.
- Findings are sufficient for review when they provide concrete detail explaining the factual basis for the Board’s character-and-fitness determination.
- Candor and honesty toward bar admissions authorities are central to “character and general fitness,” and misleading statements during the application process can independently justify denial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of comity admission, deferring to the Board’s supported credibility and candor findings and concluding that the Board’s detailed order permitted review and lawfully established a lack of required character and fitness.


In re Braun, 352 N.C. 327, 531 S.E.2d 213 (N.C. 2000)