NCSB Journal Spring 2026

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR

SPRING 2026 JOURNAL

IN THIS ISSUE In Defense of NC IOLTA page7 Cyber Insurance Premiums are Soaring page 10 Planning for Your Digital Afterlife page21

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATEBAR JOURNAL Spring 2026 Volume 31, Number 1 Editor Jennifer R. Duncan © Copyright 2026 by the North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved. Periodicals postage paid at Raleigh, NC, and additional offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the North Carolina State Bar, PO Box 25908, Raleigh, NC 27611. The North Carolina Bar Journal invites the submission of unsolicited, original articles, essays, and book reviews. Submissions may be made by mail or email (jduncan@ncbar.gov) to the ed itor. Publishing and editorial decisions are based on the Publications Committee’s and the editor’s judgment of the quality of the writing, the timeliness of the article, and the potential interest to the readers of the Journal . The Journal reserves the right to edit all man uscripts. The North Carolina State Bar Jour nal (ISSN 10928626) is published four times per year in March, June, September, and De cember under the direction and supervision of the council of the North Carolina State Bar, PO Box 25908, Raleigh, NC 27611. Member rate of $6.00 per year is included in dues. Nonmember rates $10.73 per year. Sin gle copies $5.36. Advertising rates available upon request. Direct inquiries to Director of Communications, the North Carolina State Bar, PO Box 25908, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, tel. (919) 828-4620. ncbar.gov Follow us at: X: @NCStateBar Facebook: facebook.com/NCStateBar

F E A T U R E S 7 In Defense of NC IOLTA, A Proven Model for Funding Legal Aid By Shelby Duffy Benton 10 Cyber Insurance Premiums Are Soaring—And So Are Your Risks By Michael C. Maschke, Sharon D. Nelson, and John W. Simek 12 Lawyers’ Role in “Making Haste Slowly,” Forestalling Integration Following Brown v. Board of Education By David Neal, John Charles Boger, James Williams 19 The Fine Art of Making Better Decisions By R. Michael Wells 21 Logging Off with a Legacy: Planning for Your Digital Afterlife By B. Joseph Causey Jr. and Luke A. Connor

Publication of an article in the Journal is not an endorsement by the North Carolina State Bar of the views expressed therein.

3

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

DEPARTMENTS 5 President’s Message 6 State Bar Outlook 24

34 36 40

47 48 50

IOLTA Update Rule Amendments

Client Security Fund

Distinguished Service Award

Ethics Committee Update

Random Audits

Lawyer Assistance Program

27 30 32

BAR UPDATES 31

Legal Specialization

Upcoming Appointments

The Disciplinary Department

39

In Memoriam

Pathways to Well-Being

Officers Katherine A. Frye, Raleigh President 2025-2026 Kevin G. Williams, Winston-Salem

Executive Director Peter G. Bolac

20: Joshua D. Malcolm, Pembroke 21: F. Davis Poisson III, Wadesboro 22: Judge Jason E. Ramey, Wentworth 23: Judge Tom Langan, Pilot Mountain 24: Judge Patrice A. Hinnant, Greensboro Manisha P. Patel, Greensboro 24H: Kathleen E. Nix, High Point Fred W. DeVore III, Charlotte M. Heath Gilbert Jr., Charlotte George V. Laughrun II, Charlotte Craig T. Lynch, Charlotte Gena Graham Morris, Charlotte Judge Nancy Black Norelli, Charlotte Timika Shafeek-Horton, Charlotte 27: T. Gregory Jones, Salisbury 28: Bobby Khan, Monroe 29: Matthew Rothbeind, Carthage 30: Judge Nathan Hunt Gwyn III, Monroe 31: Judge George M. Cleland IV, Winston-Salem 32: Daryl G. Davidson Sr., Taylorsville 33: Shawn L. Fraley, Lexington 34: John G. Vannoy Jr., North Wilkesboro 35: Vacant 36: Timothy J. Rohr, Lenoir 37: Judge Vance B. Long, Asheboro 38: Michael R. Neece, Gastonia 39: Ret. Judge Jim Morgan, Shelby 40: Gill Beck, Asheville 41: Merrimon B. Oxley, Forest City 42: Michael A. Lovejoy, Hendersonville 43: Zeyland G. McKinney, Murphy Public Members Patricia Head, Littleton Samantha McKenzie Holmes, Morrisville Damon Seils, Carrboro 25: Amanda Reed, Concord 26: Stacy C. Cordes, Charlotte

Associate Director and Chief Ethics Counsel Brian P.D. Oten Counsel Carmen H. Bannon Editor Jennifer R. Duncan Communications Committee Damon Seils (Public Member), Chair Judge Tom Langan, Vice-Chair Thomas D. Anglim Julie Beavers (Advisory Member) Judge Takiya Lewis Blalock Ashley Campbell (Advisory Member) Andrea Capua (Advisory Member) Judge George M. Cleland IV Amy Davis (Advisory Member) Margaret Dickson (Advisory Member) Dionne Loy Fortner M. Heath Gilbert Jr. Patricia Head (Public Member) Samantha McKenzie Holmes (Public Member) T. Gregory Jones Gena Graham Morris Kathleen E. Nix Judge Ashleigh S. Parker F. Davis Poisson III Bill Powers (Advisory Member) Judge Jason E. Ramey Brandon A. Robinson David L. Sherlin G. Gray Wilson (Advisory Member)

President-Elect 2025-2026 David N. Allen, Charlotte Vice-President 2025-2026 Matthew W. Smith, Eden Past-President 2025-2026

Peter G. Bolac, Cary Secretary 2025-2026 Councilors By Judicial District 1:

John D. Leidy, Elizabeth City Tom D. Anglim, Washington Judge Jeffrey B. Foster, Greenville Scott C. Hart, New Bern Kevin Joseph Kiernan, Clinton Will Oden III, Wilmington Judge Takiya Lewis Blalock, Ahoskie

2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9:

Michael B. Peters, Tarboro

J. Mark Herring, Kinston 10: Judge Julie L. Bell, Raleigh Anna Davis, Raleigh Judge Keith Gregory, Raleigh Jessica Heffner, Raleigh Kimberly A. Moore, Raleigh Judge Ashleigh Parker, Raleigh David Sherlin, Raleigh 11: J. Thomas Burnette, Oxford 12: Heather Williams, Dunn 13: Dionne Loy Fortner, Smithfield 14: H. Lee Boughman Jr., Fayetteville 15: Kyle Melvin, Elizabethtown 16: Meredith Nicholson, Durham Brandon Robinson, Durham 17: Kristen DelForge, Burlington 18: Fran Muse, Chapel Hill

SPRING 2026

4

THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Excellence and Accountability B Y K A T H E R I N E F R Y E

“The legal profession is a learned profes sion—one that exists not merely for itself, but for the public it serves.” Serving as president of the North Carolina State Bar affords me a vantage point few of us experience fully while im mersed in day-to-day prac tice. From this perspective, I have the privilege—and re sponsibility—of seeing our profession at both its highest and most challenging mo ments. As we move through the early months of 2026, I find myself reflecting on the full spectrum of who we are as lawyers: the very best of us, and the difficult realities we must confront to maintain the public’s trust. Few moments this year have been as af firming as recognizing the recipients of the John B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award. These lawyers embody what our pro fession aspires to be. Their service reflects sustained commitment, quiet leadership, and a deep understanding that professionalism is not a slogan but a daily practice. In honoring them, we celebrate more than individual ac complishment—we hold up exemplars of a profession grounded in integrity, the ethical obligation to give back to the community, and a desire to help people. What strikes me most about these hon orees is not simply what they have done, but how they have done it. Their careers remind us that professionalism shows up in the unglamorous moments: returning the diffi cult call, mentoring without expectation of credit, missing family moments to make sure the needs of clients are met, placing fairness above expediency, and remember ing that our words and actions shape public

confidence in the legal system. In a time when cynicism toward institutions can feel pervasive, these lawyers demonstrate that individual conduct still matters, and matters profoundly. At the same time, my role as president

The same profession that produces extraor dinary service and leadership must also be willing to examine its shortcomings. Professionalism is not defined solely by excellence; it is defined by our willingness to hold ourselves—and each other—to the standards we have pledged to uphold. These two realities of the inspiring service recognized by the John B. McMillan Award and the difficult cases addressed through our disciplinary system are not contradictions. They are complementary. Together, they de fine a profession that understands its duty to the public and takes that duty seriously. They remind us that being a lawyer is not simply about competence, but about character. As we continue through this year, I encourage each of us to reflect on how we contribute to the culture of our profession. Professionalism is not imposed by rules alone; it is sustained by everyday choices. Each interaction with a client, colleague, court, or opposing party is an opportunity to reinforce the values that justify the trust placed in us. Finally, start this year with a balanced perspective. We all know that most everyone flips straight to the discipline section of the Journal and scours the list to see who they may know. Just be sure to balance that information out by flipping to the section about the recipients of the Distinguished Service Award as well! n Katherine Frye is a founding attorney of Oak City Family Law in Raleigh, where she blends practical strategy with genuine compassion to guide clients through separation, divorce, cus tody, support, and alimony matters. A Campbell Law graduate, she opened her own practice straight out of law school and is now a North Carolina Board Certified Family Law Specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

requires me to spend signifi cant time with the work of the Ethics Committee and the Grievance Committee. This is where we confront the most challenging aspects of our profession. These committees engage daily with allegations that test our standards and, at times, reveal conduct that falls short of our obligations as lawyers. The work of those volunteer committee mem

bers is demanding, sobering, and essential. It would be easier to look away from this side of our professional life, but we cannot. The disciplinary process is not about punishment for its own sake; it is about protection of the public and preser vation of trust in the legal system. When lawyers fail to meet their ethical duties, the consequences extend beyond individual clients as they affect how the public views all of us. The careful, principled work of these committees reflects our collective commitment to accountability and fair ness, even when the process is uncomfort able. Our holding our profession account able (often publicly) is how we protect the trust granted to us by our having the privi lege of self-regulation. Seeing both ends of this spectrum has reinforced for me an important truth: the strength of our profession lies not in pre tending that problems do not exist by hid ing them away from public view, but in addressing them openly and responsibly.

5

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

STATE BAR OUTLOOK

The Living Ledger: Lessons from a 128-Year-Old Bequest B Y P E T E R G . B O L A C

A few weeks ago, an unex pected package arrived at my office from a 92-year old woman named Nancy Cobb Peele. Inside was an original edition of an 1898 book, Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians . Nancy wanted the book to be in safe hands when she passed away, and nobody in her family wanted to keep it. The author (and Nancy’s great-uncle) was William Jefferson (W.J.) Peele. W.J. Peele was a prominent member of the Raleigh Bar and an architect of our state’s historical memory. As a founder of the North Carolina Historical Commission, he understood that if we do not preserve the records of our own time, we allow the future to reinvent us in their own image. Reading this volume, compiled nearly 130 years ago, was a reminder that those of us in positions of leadership are merely writing the opening arguments for a case that history will eventu ally decide. The names in Peele’s book—William R. Davie, Nathaniel Macon, William Gaston, Thomas Ruffin, and David Swain, among others—are ubiquitous today. We see them on street signs and county maps. The value of a record like Peele’s is that it was com piled when the memories of its subjects were still warm. It includes personal stories and professional nuances that haven't yet been scrubbed away by the generalizations of a century. However, we must also read such a book with clear eyes. Written in 1898, it is deeply embedded in the “Lost Cause” narrative of its era. It often views the defense of slavery through a lens of romanticized chivalry that we, with the benefit of a century of progress, recognize as a profound moral blind spot. As we drift further from the events of the

past, history tends to flatten people into car icatures. Prominent people from the past become either venerated icons or convenient villains. But the reality is more challenging: history is full of leaders who were personally brilliant, professionally ethical, and yet often held views that are rightfully condemned by the judgment of time. Take, for instance, William R. Davie. Most of us know his name from the county or the “Davie Poplar” at Chapel Hill. In these pages, however, we see the living man: a Revolutionary War soldier who exhausted his personal fortune to equip his troops and the visionary statesman who founded the first public university in the nation. Davie represents the ambitious, foundational spirit of North Carolina. He was a leader who looked 50 years ahead to the intellectual needs of a young state, yet he was also a man of his time, operating within a social struc ture that he could not, or would not, foresee the endof. Peele’s pages remind us that leadership is tested in different ways. If William R. Davie represents the foresight required for a state’s growth, Bartholomew Moore represents the prescience and integrity required to survive its most perilous hour. Widely considered the “Father of the Bar,” Bartholomew Moore’s life offers a pro found lesson for today’s lawyer-leaders regarding the difference between popularity and integrity. A staunch Unionist in a state hurtling toward secession, Moore was often a solitary voice. Many of the state’s leaders at the time found his politics deeply unpalat able, yet they could not find a crack in his character. He was a man who arrived at his opinions through exhaustive study and clung to them with a tenacity that defied the passions of the moment. Moore proved to be remarkably

prescient, foreseeing the devastation that secession would bring to the state he loved. He was respected nonetheless because he was a man whose North Star was the rule of law. His peers may have disliked his stance, but they never doubted his devotion to the truth. In fact, the author of his memorial tribute in Peele’s book was a Confederate colonel who fought at Antietam. Nowhere was Moore’s commitment to the integrity of the law more evident than in his famous “Protest of the Bar” in 1869. When he felt the North Carolina Supreme Court had become dangerously politicized during the Reconstruction era, Moore draft ed a public protest signed by over 100 prominent lawyers. It was an act of extreme civil courage that resulted in him and others being temporarily disbarred and summoned for contempt. To Moore, the independence of the judiciary was more sacred than his

CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

SPRING 2026

6

In Defense of NC IOLTA, a Proven Model for Funding LegalAid

B Y S H E L B Y D U F F Y B E N T O N

A s a longtime family law practitioner in Goldsboro, I’ve seen the deep need for civil legal aid my Wayne County neighbors experi ence. I have witnessed numerous times the dif ference legal aid lawyers made in helping sur vivors of domestic violence obtain protective orders to protect themselves, and often their children, from their abusers. With the sup port of legal aid attorneys, survivors have more confidence and are usually successful in having their domestic violence protective orders entered. But all too often, survivors come to court with absolutely no assistance and do not understand the process. As a result, I have seen them walk out defeated, only to return to the abusive situation they had been in. Along with half of the other counties in North Carolina, Wayne County is a legal desert, meaning there is less than one lawyer per 1,000 residents. As a result, these areas, which are often home to rural and tradition ally underserved communities, see a signifi cant portion of needs in both civil and crim inal matters go unmet. As a small-town attorney and past-presi dent of the North Carolina Bar Association, I know I have a professional obligation to mitigate such harm. That’s why I support access to legal services by donating to Legal Aid of North Carolina and volunteering my time with the North Carolina Bar Foundation program known as North Carolina Free Legal Answers.

That’s also why, in 2019, I joined the nine-member Board of Trustees of North Carolina Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (NC IOLTA) and served two terms, including three years as board chair. That experience was inspiring for me. It allowed me to see even more clearly the civil legal needs North Carolinians are experienc ing and the efforts nonprofits make to meet those needs. A Proven Model for Funding Legal Aid IOLTA is an innovative approach to funding legal services that pools the interest earned on lawyers’ general trust accounts to fund civil legal aid for our most vulnerable neighbors and communities—without any cost to attorneys, their clients, or taxpayers. It is a national model in place in all United States jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands. Since its creation by the State Bar and the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1983, this program has awarded more than $134 million to organizations that provide civil legal aid to low-income North Carolinians. That translates to hundreds of thousands of seniors, veterans, farmers, families, and other residents who were supported in cases rang ing from pending foreclosures to consumer scams and access to wages and benefits, as well as many, many survivors of domestic violence who found much-needed safety and support. NC IOLTA funding also supports programs and initiatives that improve the administration of justice across the state. All t t t t y t d f

jacoblund/istockphoto.com

of us in the legal community should be proud of this program’s impact! As an NC IOLTA board member for six years, I became well versed in the processes and procedures established by the program, which is subject to oversight by the North Carolina Supreme Court and follows strict policies and protocols that include diligent financial reporting and yearly audits. The categories for awarding grant funding are dictated by State Bar administrative rules. Trustees approve detailed grant criteria, which are reviewed regularly.

7

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

“Since its creation by the State Bar and the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1983, this pro gram has awarded more than $134 million to organizations that provide civil legal aid to low income North Carolinians. That translates to hundreds of thousands of seniors, veterans, farmers, families, and other residents who were supported in cases ranging from pending fore closures to consumer scams and access to wages and benefits, as well as many, many survivors of domestic violence who found much-needed safety and support.”

initiatives that benefit the public. Similarly, the criteria by which prospec tive grantees are evaluated have not changed much over the years. The board considers many factors when deciding how to allocate available funds, including how many low income residents a program or organization is designed to serve and what degree of need a particular community has. During my time on the board, we made grant decisions that addressed both ongoing and emergent needs. Recognizing the financial pressure being put on home ownership by the 2020 pan demic and subsequent economic challenges, we continued support of multiple nonprofits focused on staving off foreclosures and land loss—saving cherished homes and family farms and contributing to the stability and well-being of families and communities across the state. Galvanized by North Carolina’s 2020 Legal Needs Assessment and the State Bar’s 2023 Legal Desert Summit that highlighted gaps in access to justice in many of our coun ties, we renewed funding for an internship program that sends law students into these communities to work alongside legal aid attorneys, district attorneys and public defenders, and judges—bringing young legal talent into the very areas that need it most and helping interns appreciate the rewards (and challenges) of practicing law in small towns. I have spoken with some of these stu dents after their summer internships, and many express a keen interest in careers in public service and working in legal deserts. Programs like this one build the future of our profession across our state. Responding to the daunting needs in communities in Western North Carolina

after Hurricane Helene, we funded nearly $1M in emergency and out-of-cycle grants to speed resources to legal aid groups already on the ground in hard-hit areas. Even now, these groups continue to assist survivors as they work to rebuild their lives—replacing lost documents, filing insurance appeals, and seeking compensation from unscrupulous service providers and fraudsters who took advantage of people in the storm’s aftermath. NC IOLTA grantees fight for disability rights; employment, health care, and bene fits access; safety and justice for survivors of domestic violence, victims of human traf ficking, refugees and asylum-seekers; driv er’s license restoration; custody and guardianship; consumer protections…The list goes on. Here’s the bottom line: NC IOLTA grantees—attorneys, paralegals, advocates, and thousands of members of the private bar who volunteer their time because they believe in access to justice for all—use the legal tools our lawmakers at both the state and federal level have created to protect the rights of North Carolinians and to allow them to seek redress when those rights have been violated. That was at the heart of NC IOLTA’s mission when it first started making grants in 1984, and it hasn’t changed in the more than 40 years since. Indeed, the program is built upon the very bedrock of our democracy: equal protection under the law. A Harmful Funding Freeze Last July, the General Assembly included a provision in a bipartisan bill that explicitly bars NC IOLTA from using any funds to make grants for a period of one year. As such, none of the civil legal aid organizations doing

Each year, the board is tasked with reviewing all grant applications and voting on grant awards. During my tenure—which spanned a period of higher interest rates and a booming real estate market that helped boost IOLTA revenue in North Carolina, allowing us to fund more organizations than ever before—I voted on almost 250 grant applications. I remain awed and deeply grat ified by the impact these grantees made. As a family law attorney, I know how important having basic legal services is to people going through family law-related sit uations. During my time on the board, we sought applications for grantees providing family law services, an identified area of unmet need for low-income people. Inner Banks Legal Services, based in “Little” Washington, started receiving NC IOLTA grant funding in 2023 to provide family law services to people in underserved communi ties in Eastern North Carolina. Another grantee, Wake County Legal Support Center, opened in 2023 and provides pro se litigants with the resources they need to nav igate the court process, with more than half of the visitors they’ve seen each year coming to court on matters of family law. I hope both of these nonprofits will become models for others to replicate across our state. It is your support of the IOLTA program that has made this game-changing work pos sible. Thank you! A Mission Spanning More than 40 Years While the State Bar has made occasional updates to the IOLTA rules—often in re sponse to court rulings on IOLTA programs across the country—NC IOLTA has remained steadfast in its mission of funding civil legal aid organizations and administration of justice

SPRING 2026

8

The funding freeze has already cost the residents of small towns and rural communi ties across the state their in-person access to Legal Aid of North Carolina attorneys and advocates, as the organization has been forced to close several offices and reduce staff. These offices provided critical legal services to low-income North Carolinians including veterans, seniors and survivors of domestic violence. While LANC is doing everything they can to provide access to their services in other ways, the difficult truth is that many folks in rural areas will have an even harder time accessing the legal help they need this year. And while LANC has long been NC IOLTA’s largest grantee, serving all 100 counties, the detrimental impact of the freeze is not limited to them. In fact, some recent NC IOLTA grantees are small, scrappy oper ations that do truly transformational legal work on very lean budgets. While many of them are looking to make up the funding in other ways, the loss of an anticipated NC IOLTA grant in 2026 means they could be forced to trim their operations as well.

Office closures, layoffs and reduced client intake are chipping away at a network of support that we know is already severely strained in too many of our communities. As the State Bar has already done, I urge you to do what you can to support your local legal aid organizations through pro bono efforts and/or financial support. Share your own call to action within your professional network. And, finally, I hope you will stand with me in defense of our NC IOLTA pro gram, a proven funder and partner in the access to justice community for more than 40 years. n Shelby Duffy Benton has practiced family law in Goldsboro, NC, for 40 years with Benton Family Law. She has served as president of the NCBA/NCBF, as a trustee and chair of NC IOLTA, and as a NC State Bar councilor. She is currently a commissioner on the NC Domestic Violence Commission and a member of the NC State Bar Family Law Specialization Committee. Learn more about NC IOLTA at nciolta.org.

the incredibly important work described above have been awarded any grant money for 2026. This legislation means that North Carolina is now the only state in the nation that is not funding civil legal aid through the IOLTA program. Peter Bolac, executive director of the State Bar, has previously shared the Bar’s assessment of the impact this funding freeze will have on legal aid organizations, low income North Carolinians and our state’s court system. I encourage you to read his Nov. 6 communication, which is available on the Bar’s website, if you have not already done so. As of this writing in early January 2026, the General Assembly has not taken further legislative action on this matter. Good-faith efforts by State Bar and NC IOLTA leader ship to address legislators’ concerns and potentially shorten the duration of the freeze do not appear to have moved the needle. As the weeks pass, the harm being done to the legal aid landscape of North Carolina grows — harm that will likely take years to undo.

9

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

Cyber Insurance Premiums Are Soaring—And So Are Your Risks

B Y M I C H A E L C . M A S C H K E , S H A R O N D . N E L S O N , A N D J OH N W. S I M E K

T he global cybersecurity insurance market is about to explode. A new forecast predicts it will more than double by 2030—jumping from roughly $16.5 billion to day to $32 billion in just five years. That’s a 14% annual growth rate, which in insur g y

AnthiaCumming/istockphoto.com

ance terms is rocket fuel. Why the sudden

surge? And, more importantly, why should d

law firms (and their clients) care?

Breaches, Ransomware, and the Regulatory Tsunami

For many businesses, insurance is becom ing the only realistic safety net. Cyber poli cies are no longer “nice to have.” They’re fast becoming a requirement—by boards, clients, and regulators alike. The Insurance Industry is Playing Catch - Up Insurers are scrambling to adapt. Legacy carriers like Chubb, Travelers, and Liberty

Mutual are bundling cyber coverage with traditional policies, while also forming alliances with cybersecurity firms like BitSight and SecurityScorecard. The idea is to combine actuarial data with real - time threat intelligence to price policies more accurately—and to push clients toward bet ter security before a claim ever lands. Why does this matter? Because under writing cyber risk is notoriously difficult.

Ransomware is now a multibillion-dollar criminal industry. Breaches at law firms, health care systems, and Fortune 500 compa nies dominate headlines. And regulators aren’t sitting this one out. Between Europe’s GDPR, the NIS2 directive, and the US’s expanding patchwork of state privacy laws, the compliance stakes have never been higher.

SPRING 2026

10

State Bar Outlook (cont.) own professional standing. He risked his livelihood to ensure that the legitimacy of the law was not stained by the temporary politi cal whims of the day. This brings us to the question that should weigh heavily on every leader within our Bar and our legal system: What are we doing now, in both behavior and action, that will stand up to the judgment of history 30 or 50 or even 100 years down the road? “Leadership” is often measured in near term successes, judged using the prevailing narrative of the day. But history is a cold eyed juror. It eventually looks past the political expediency of the moment to examine the underlying character of the decisions made. It asks: Did this leader act There aren’t decades of claims data to lean on, and threat actors innovate faster than most corporate defenses. Expect carriers to continue tightening their underwriting requirements—think mandatory MFA, end point detection, and documented incident response plans. If you’re advising clients (or running your firm), that shift is coming for you, too. North America remains the 800 - pound gorilla of cyber insurance, accounting for nearly 70% of global premiums. But Asia - Pacific is the fastest - growing region. Rapid digitization, combined with new reg ulatory mandates, is pushing organizations to seek coverage at record speed. Expect more global carriers to establish a presence in Asia-Pacific over the next few years. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most businesses still don’t have cyber coverage at all. And even when they do, policy limits are often laughably low compared to the poten tial fallout of a serious incident. Global cybercrime losses in 2024 were estimated somewhere between $1 trillion and $9.5 trillion (yes, trillion with a “T”). Premiums? A fraction of that. The gap between losses and coverage is staggering— and attackers aren’t slowing down. Why Lawyers Should Care For law firms, this isn’t just another industry statistic. Cyber insurance directly

with an eye toward the next generation? Did they preserve the integrity of the insti tution, or did they sacrifice it for a tempo rary advantage? As leaders, our behavior and our character are what will be remembered by those who knew us and, more importantly, by those who knew the people who knew us. Character has a long half-life. The memorial tributes that will be told about us in 50 years are being written by our actions today. We often talk about “the Bar” as an abstract entity. It isn’t. It is a living ledger of our collective conduct. Our behavior and actions towards each other and to our justice system are the entries in this ledger, and they will ultimately be reconciled by future histo rians. In the spirit of preserving the first pages of our ledger, I am donating this copy impacts your risk profile and the advice you give to clients: • Your firm’s coverage: If you’re still treat ing cyber insurance as optional, stop. Client data, privileged communications, escrow accounts—all are prime targets. As an added incentive, clients may require that you have minimum cyber coverage. Coverage isn’t just about reimbursement; it’s about access to breach coaches, forensics, and PR resources you’ll desperately need when things go wrong. • Client counseling: Whether you handle deals, litigation, or employment matters, your clients’ cyber risks are intertwined with your own. Asking “Do you have cyber insur ance?” isn’t prying—it’s prudent. • Contract negotiations: Cyber insurance is increasingly appearing in deal terms. Representations, warranties, and indemnifi cation clauses often hinge on it. Know the basics—or risk leaving clients exposed. The Bottom Line (and the To - Do List) Cyber insurance is growing because cyber risk is growing—fast. By 2030, the market will likely be twice its current size and still struggling to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated attackers. Don’t wait for the next ransomware headline. Review your firm’s cyber insurance policy this quarter—confirm the coverage limits, exclusions, and incident response sup

of Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians to the North Carolina Supreme Court Library. Like all good pieces of history, the book is not just a relic of a forgotten past, but also a mirror to our fragile present. My challenge to the leaders of our profes sion is this: Let’s be better. Let’s lead in a way that, 50 years from now, when a future lawyer pulls our names from a dusty shelf, the stories told about us are ones of integrity, civil courage, and a commitment to justice that remains true even under the harsh light of history. We are all currently writing the history of the North Carolina State Bar. Let’s ensure it is a book worth reading. n Peter G. Bolac is the executive director of the North Carolina State Bar. port. Then encourage your clients to do the same. When (not if) the next significant breach happens, the only thing worse than being attacked is realizing your coverage won’t cover what matters. n Michael C. Maschke is the president and chief executive officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Maschke is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity, and digital foren sics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association. He can be reached at mmaschke@senseient.com. Sharon D. Nelson is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. She is a past-president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association, and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. She can be reached at snelson@senseient.com John W. Simek is the co-founder of and con sultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He holds mul tiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co author of 18 books published by the American Bar Association. He can be reached at jsimek@senseient.com.

11

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

Lawyers’ Role in “Making Haste Slowly,” Forestalling Integration Following Brown v. Board of Education O n Monday, May 17, 1954, Mary Irving Campbell (née Carlyle) was at R.J. Reynolds High School, nearing the end of her senior year. An announcement was made while the students were in the cafe ter i a : t h e Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas , hold B Y D A V I D N E A L , J OH N C H A R L E S B O G E R , J A M E S W I L L I A M S

ing that “in the field of public education,

the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no

place.” 1

ise of racial integration. 2 Mary’s mother, Mrs. Irving Carlyle, was the president of the Reynolds High PTA at the time. Just a few weeks later, during the final PTA meeting of the school year, she called on the community

to not defy or attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision: “We as teachers and parents must provide the climate of opin ion in which the law can operate in a peaceful way and without undue tension.” 3

It wasn’t long before some of her class mates in the all-white public high school—a school that drew from the neighborhoods of Winston-Salem’s ruling class—began jeering and putting up signs in defiance of the prom

SPRING 2026

12

Mary’s father, Irving Carlyle, had a plat form far beyond the halls of Reynolds High or the local PTA. He was set to deliver the keynote speech at the 1954 Democratic Party state convention on May 20, just three days following the Supreme Court’s decision. A former legislator, successful corporate lawyer, and former president of both the Chamber of Commerce and the North Carolina Bar Association (1944–45), he was, on paper, what you might expect from the business-ori ented, governing Democratic elite. His pre pared remarks were described in the newspa per as “typical fighting party talk,” celebrating the Democratic Party’s accomplishments and “laying into the Republicans, particularly into the present administration and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.” 4 At the last minute, he also inserted into his speech the following words about the Brown decision: “The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken. As good citizens, we have no other course except to obey the law as laid down by the Court. To do otherwise would cost us our respect for law and order, and if we lost that in these critical times, we will have lost that quality which is the source of our strength as a state and as a nation.” The same newspaper article noted that his 45 minute speech was interrupted 28 times with applause. His remarks on complying with the Court’s directive to end segregation “drew the biggest hand of all, and many of the Democrats rose to applaud him.” 5 Wallace Carroll, former editor and publisher of the Winston-Salem Journal & Sentinel , remarked that the applause was for his courage, not an endorsement of the underlying message. 6 Consistent with that interpretation, neither the governing Democratic Party nor the State Bar heeded his counsel. The State Bar hosted discussions on the integration question at its state conventions in 1955 and 1956 from leading members, speeches that were later printed in TheNorth Carolina Bar , the predecessor to the State Bar Journal . 7 None of the state’s 40 or 50 Black lawyers were included in these debates. Irving Carlyle’s participation in those debates in 1956 reflected his dogged insistence that lawyers shared a unique responsibility to lead the way in complying with Brown and inte grating public schools. For his public com mitment to equal justice under the law, he received threats, harassing letters, and phone calls—one in particular that Mary Irving Campbell recalls included the rhetorical ques

tion, “Who do you think your daughter’s going to marry?”—and was guaranteed that he would be passed over for consideration by Governor Umstead for an appointment to the then-vacant US Senate seat. 8 It should not be forgotten that this level of harassment was far less extreme than what was endured by Black civil rights leaders, who were some times targeted for criminal prosecution, sub jected to economic reprisals, or victimized by white vigilante violence, such as the bomb ings of the homes of Julius Chambers, Reginald Hawkins (a parent in a number of school desegregation cases), and brothers Fred (a city council member) and Kelly Alexander Sr. (president of the State Conference of Branches of the NAACP) in Charlotte in 1965. 9 White Democratic lawyers had promi nent roles in state governance at the time and would largely dictate the state’s strategy for delaying integration without open defiance of the Supreme Court. Their strategy proved a public relations coup for the “progressive” business elite who governed the state, embel lishing the moderate veneer that was central to the economic development strategy cham pioned by Governor Umstead and his succes sor, Luther Hodges. The Research Triangle Park was conceived and planned at the same time as North Carolina was navigating its response to the integration decision, and investments in public education were instru mental to efforts to shift away from an econ omy dominated by agriculture and low skilled textile and furniture manufacturing. The legal strategy was also informed by the governor, by the Attorney General’s Office, lawyers at the UNC Institute of Government, and an advisory committee led by attorney (and former Speaker of the House) Thomas Pearsall of Rocky Mount. Their positions were well reflected in debates before the State Bar. The range of viable options was set by the same Democratic white power structure that had governed Jim Crow North Carolina for more than half a century. The overriding goal of these white men, who shaped the state’s response to Brown , was the preservation of public schools as they were then operated—on a segregated basis—for as long as possible. Visionaries like Carlyle, who believed lawyers had a key role in helping their fellow white citizens accept civil rights for all, did not ultimately shape the decision about how to respond to Brown . African American attorneys were ignored

entirely. Conrad Pearson, who organized the Legal Redress Committee of the State Conference of Branches of the NAACP with lawyers like William G. Marsh Jr., Floyd McKissick Sr. of Durham, Charles Bell and Thomas Wyche of Charlotte, Ruben Daile of Asheville, and J. Kenneth Lee of Greensboro—lawyers who represented those brave families who fought for their full civil rights—were not consulted about how to comply with Brown . 10 Instead, the real debate was between those who wanted to overtly defy the Supreme Court to maintain segregation at all costs and those who wanted to move as slowly as possible. Lawyers Shape North Carolina’s Response to Brown The policy debate in the 1950s, as reflect ed in the speeches to the State Bar, was between rigid segregationists who fully embraced white supremacy, like Carlyle’s close family friend from Wake Forest, Assistant Attorney General I. Beverly Lake Sr., and those members of the Bar who con cluded that maintaining segregation by delay ing compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate was necessary in order to preserve white support for the public schools. 11 This view was represented in the 1956 State Bar debates by Col. William Joyner, a member of the Pearsall Committee, which ultimately charted the course followed by the state in the first decade following the Brown decision. Governor Umstead, a Trinity College (Duke University) law-trained attorney and former district attorney, sought briefing from the UNC Institute of Government immedi ately after hearing news of the high court’s decision. While Governor Umstead’s col leagues in the South would go on to make headlines publicly decrying the Court’s deci sion and calling for outright defiance, Gov. Umstead followed a quieter course, saying that he was “terribly disappointed” by the rul ing, reserving further comment until he could read and study the opinion. 12 Ten days after the decision, Gov. Umstead issued a fuller statement of his dis appointment with the Supreme Court. In a move that would warm the hearts of original ists, he started with the observation that when Governor William Holden submitted the Fourteenth Amendment for ratification to the NC General Assembly in 1868, he assured state leaders that adopting the amendment would not bar North Carolina

13

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL

“from operating separate schools for the white and colored races.” 13 A statute was enacted that same year to provide for segre gated educational facilities, followed by a constitutional amendment that required racially segregated schools, adopted after Democrats returned to power in 1875. Since the Supreme Court later blessed the doctrine of “separate but equal” in 1896, and since North Carolina had recently made strides in equalizing facilities and teacher pay for “both races,” Gov. Umstead expressed his disagree ment with the conclusion of the Supreme Court in Brown . In a tone that would carry over to the next governor and that in some ways echoed the words of Irving Carlyle, Governor Umstead ultimately recognized the authority of the Supreme Court to declare the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “However, the Supreme Court has spoken. It has reversed itself and has declared segregation in public schools uncon stitutional.” In what would also prove to be the consistent theme of North Carolina’s response to Brown , Gov. Umstead stressed that the 1954 Supreme Court opinion had postponed any enforcement of its decision, which gave North Carolina’s leaders time to work out solutions to the “complex problem” created by Brown . “This is no time for rash statements or the proposal of impossible schemes.” Instead, Gov. Umstead pledged to consult with other state leaders since no “final conclusions as to our course and the program we shall follow is immediately necessary.” The UNC Institute of Government’s study of the opinion was provided by its founding director, Albert Coates, and Assistant Director James Paul, both attor neys. 14 Paul had been a clerk to former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Vinson for two years, so he had a first-hand preview of the Court’s thinking before the Brown decision was reached. 15 As Director Coates noted in his introduc tion to the Report, there were essentially three courses of action available to state leaders fol lowing the Supreme Court’s decision: (1) let the Supreme Court figure out how to enforce its decision, “with attitudes ranging from pas sive resistance to open defiance;” (2) follow the edicts of the Court and “proceed in the direction of mixed schools without delay;” or, (3) what was clearly the preferred route taken by North Carolina’s political leaders, [I]t can take the course of playing for time

in which to study plans for action making haste slowly enough to avoid the provoca tive litigation and strife which might be a consequence of denying the decision, avoid the possibility of friction and strife which might be a consequence of precipi tate and unthinking acquiescence, and yet make haste fast enough to come with the law and keep the schools and keep the peace. 16 The phrase “making haste slowly enough” foreshadowed the Supreme Court’s infamous formulation in Brown II , ordering states to move with “all deliberate speed.” 17 Professor James Paul stressed that the Supreme Court, as of the summer of 1954, had “not yet declared how or when the consti tutional rights which it has adjudicated may be enforced by those Negroes who seek to enforce them.” 18 The decrees in the five con solidated cases actually decided in Brown had not yet been formulated. If the Supreme Court did not enumerate detailed standards in its next decision, Paul concluded, the mat ters would be directed to lower courts to work out the details of compliance in those partic ular cases. Given the Court’s acknowledg ment that states may require time for a “grad ual adjustment,” many of Prof. Paul’s ideas focused on how best to use that time and the likely discretion afforded to states and local school districts before enforcement actions would follow. In short, the Institute of Government suggested that if the state could show it was working towards gradual compli ance, however slowly, it could likely avoid a direct confrontation with federal courts. Pearsall, after considering the Institute of Government’s analysis of Brown , agreed that actual enforcement would likely come, if ever, from decisions made by US District Court judges in individual cases over time, not from some sweeping decree from the high court or from the appointment of a spe cial master to make recommendations for national enforcement in the near term. 19 This legal perspective, reinforced in 1955 by Brown II’s subsequent mandate, proved piv otal in the state’s strategy to bide its time, allowing segregated schools to persist at the local level for years to come. The centerpiece of the state’s first move to appear to comply with the Court’s ruling was to pass a new statute that removed the requirement for racial segregation as a matter of state law. North Carolina essentially inverted its state motto and decided “to seem

rather than to be” as it charted its course of “making haste slowly.” Gov. Hodges, who had served as lieutenant governor until Gov. Umstead’s death in November 1954, backed this recommendation of the Pearsall Committee over the objection of I. Beverly Lake at the Attorney General’s Office. Lake wanted to maintain a state law requiring explicit racial segregation in public schools. Lake would later align himself with the Patriots of North Carolina, our state’s version of the White Citizens’ Council, and would become one of the leading legal defenders of “interposition,” the idea that North Carolina could lawfully defy the Supreme Court under the Tenth Amendment. 20 The contours of the committee’s recom mendations were hammered out by two lawyers—the chair, Pearsall, and Col. William Joyner, one of the preeminent lawyers of his time. Joyner’s father, James Yadkin Joyner, had been the superintendent of public schools under Governor Charles B. Aycock in the early 1900s. The first Pearsall Committee concluded that: The mixing of the races forthwith in the public schools throughout the state can not be accomplished and should not be attempted. The schools of our state are so intimately related to the customs and feel ings of the people of each community that their effective operation is impossible except in conformity with community attitudes. The committee feels that the compulsory mixing of the races in our schools on a state-wide basis and without regard to local conditions and assignment factors other than race, would alienate public support of the schools to such an extent that they could not be operated successfully. 21 The committee took advantage of the Institute of Government’s report as a guide on “just how far” they could go legally. 22 By devolving all pupil assignment decisions to the local level, the state government insulated itself from any role in enforcing racial segre gation, meaning that any subsequent litiga tion to force compliance with Brown would have to play out school district by school dis trict. The committee’s recommendation for a new pupil assignment law was enacted in the spring of 1955. 23 Pearsall thought that the state had estab lished a winning political strategy coming out of the earlier legal battles to end state enforced racial segregation at the UNC Law

SPRING 2026

14