Nifong decries State Bar's "unfairness"

Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong ended his legal career last week when he mailed in his law license along with a note decrying "the fundamental unfairness" of how he was treated by the N.C. State Bar.

The bitterness in Nifong's letter, dated Aug. 7, is in stark contrast with his statements in June, when the bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission ordered him stripped him of his law license for intentionally and repeatedly lying and cheating during his prosecution of the Duke lacrosse case.

Near the end of the June hearing, Nifong said through his lawyer that the State Bar had treated him fairly and that he would not appeal the verdict.

"I've talked with Mr. Nifong," David Freedman told the disciplinary panel. "He has told me that he believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts, that he believes disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case."

Nifong was disbarred for his prosecution of rape charges against three Duke lacrosse players. Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed the charges and declared that Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were innocent.

The State Bar charged Nifong with 20 different violations of the ethics rules. In an oral ruling at the conclusion of the trial, the disciplinary panel found him guilty of 11 counts. However, when the panel later issued its official written order, one count was missing, a fact noticed by Duke law professor Robert Mosteller, who is writing two law review articles on the case. Mosteller sent an e-mail to the State Bar, trying to reconcile the discrepancy: "Am I just missing this reference, is there an explanation, or just an apparent oversight?"

Lane Williamson, a Charlotte lawyer who chaired the disciplinary panel, amended the order to include the eleventh count.

The change irked Nifong, who did not return phone calls for comment on Tuesday:

"Mr. Williamson's e-mail assertion that the addition of a new conclusion of law based on the request of a Duke University law professor is merely a 'clerical correction' is preposterous beyond belief, and is further evidence of the fundamental unfairness with which this entire procedure has been conducted."