Loading...
North Carolina lawyer Nicolle T. Phair of Sanford is facing a disciplinary hearing after employing a controversial legal strategy involving the use of a substitute litigant during an arraignment hearing. Phair’s actions have sparked scrutiny and led to a disciplinary complaint filed by the North Carolina State Bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission.
The incident in question occurred during a June 2022 arraignment hearing in Lee County, North Carolina, where Phair was representing a client accused of a hit-and-run accident. The critical moment arose when the victim was required to identify the defendant.
In a surprising move, shortly before the hearing began, Phair requested her actual client to leave the courtroom and remain in the lobby. She then ventured into an adjacent courtroom and located a child-support litigant. Phair approached the litigant and requested a favor: to stand beside her during the hearing to see if anyone could identify him as the criminal defendant.
As the hearing progressed, when the judge asked Phair and her “client” to approach the bench to discuss a possible plea agreement, Phair left the fake client at the defense table, according to the allegations raised by the disciplinary commission. Phair justified her reluctance to engage in plea negotiations by claiming that she doubted the witnesses could positively identify her actual client.
Advance your legal career and achieve your professional goals – sign up for LawCrossing now.
However, the situation took a concerning turn during a lunch recess. At this point, both the prosecutor and the judge realized that the litigant standing at the defense table may not have been the actual criminal defendant. When the judge inquired about the matter, Phair, in her response, acknowledged the use of this unorthodox tactic.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Phair now faces disciplinary action for her unconventional use of a fake client and for providing inconsistent explanations regarding her tardiness for a hearing, where she arrived two hours late. In her response to the disciplinary complaint, Phair expressed regret for her delay and cited an emergency as the reason for her late return to court.
In her defense, Phair is seeking recognition for her dedication to representing clients zealously and her willingness to cooperate with clients and the court. She has requested that the disciplinary hearing panel either dismiss the ethics complaint against her or impose a disciplinary action that allows her to continue practicing law.
The situation has garnered significant attention within the legal community, with many questioning the ethical implications of such a strategy. It remains to be seen how the disciplinary hearing panel will respond to Phair’s defense and whether her actions will have long-lasting consequences on her legal career.
Currently, Phair has not responded to requests for comments from various news outlets, including the ABA Journal. The case continues to unfold, shedding light on the complexities and boundaries of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
