[supercat]

Consequently, the information that came to light in December about additional wrongdoing could not have been the cause of this complaint being filed.

Certainly the complaint could not have been filed because of events that happened later after the filing. On the other hand, I don't think the filing of the complaint committed the Bar to its public disclosure.

I would guess that the Bar hoped things could be dealt with discretely, but since then it has become clear to everyone that Nifong's malfeasance went far beyond bad judgement and involved actions he had to know were illegal. The Bar couldn't immediately publicise complaints about those illegal actions, but could immediately publicise those complaints which had already been filed. And from what I can tell, that's what it did.

[Tom D.]

My sense is that almost all of the complaints filed before the Disciplinary Hearing Commission are public records and it would be an extraordinary step to file one under seal.

I have been a lawyer in North Carolina for over 27 years and I cannot recall a single instance where there has been a sealed complaint before that commission. During that time there have been complaints filed against other prosecutors, politicians of both parties, partners of politicians, etc. and everyone of them has been public and in the newspaper.