PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2218 CAPITAL ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff − Appellant, v. JOSH STEIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; NANCY LORRIN FREEMAN, In her official capacity as District Attorney for the 10th Prosecutorial District of the State of North Carolina; J. DOUGLAS HENDERSON, In his official capacity as District Attorney for the 18th Prosecutorial District of the State of North Carolina, Defendants – Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Intervenor/Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00083-LCB-JLW) Argued: December 13, 2018 Decided: April 19, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Senior Judge Duncan joined. ARGUED: Reid Lloyd Phillips, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY, & LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Alan William Duncan, MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jennifer K. Van Zant, Charles E. Coble, Craig D. Schauer, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen M. Russell, Jr., MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee North Carolina State Bar. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees Joshua H. Stein, Nancy Lorrin Freeman, and J. Douglas Henderson. 2 DIAZ, Circuit Judge: Capital Associated Industries, Inc. (“CAI”) is a trade association representing North Carolina employers. As part of a plan to expand its membership, CAI wants to provide legal services to its members. But it cannot because state law forbids corporations from practicing law. Following unsuccessful lobbying efforts to change the law, CAI sued state prosecutors to enjoin the enforcement of state unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”) statutes against it. After the North Carolina State Bar intervened to defend the statutes, the defendants obtained summary judgment. On appeal, CAI contends that North Carolina’s UPL statutes violate its constitutional rights to free association, free speech, and commercial speech; lack a rational basis; are void for vagueness; and violate the state constitution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. A. Since 1931, the State of North Carolina has forbidden corporations from practicing law. N.C. Gen Stat. § 84-5(a). 1 To address the unauthorized practice of law, the State Bar and state prosecutors may sue for an injunction, and prosecutors may bring misdemeanor charges. Id. §§ 84-37, 84-7, 84-8(a). The UPL statutes do, however, allow 1 North Carolina is not alone in doing so. Almost all other states have similar laws on the books. J.A. 754. One state allows unincorporated nonprofit “association[s]” to practice law. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2524(b)(1). And CAI points to trade associations practicing law in a few other states. J.A. 181, 197, 213. But at least one of those states bans corporations from ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals