I really am honestly trying to figure out this David Malcolm thing, I understand why his felony conviction was eradicated, I think. Why it was changed to a misdemeanor before it was eradicated, however, still blows my mind.

Fellow local blogger Pat Flannery pointed out to me that Malcolm may have wanted the misdemeanor as opposed to the felony because of his real estate license.

Flannery referenced Malcolm’s unblemished real estate record and said this:

As you can see there has been “no disciplinary action” despite the fact that he had a felony conviction in 2003, which is grounds for license revocation, supposedly automatic.

Not so, actually, the real estate license battle has been fought. Malcolm won it.

As my new trusty research assistant Valentine Moossa discovered in court filings she obtained today, the attorney general actually went after Malcolm’s real estate license after the conviction, and lost.

An administrative law judge decided that Malcolm’s felony conflict-of-interest guilty plea didn’t need to cause a revocation of his license to practice real estate.


We Stand Up For You. Will You Stand Up For Us?

Key passage:

Taking into account respondent’s long and unblemished career as a real estate broker, the recognition that respondent’s conviction had nothing to do with the field of real estate, the absence of any harm to the public from his actions as a Port Commissioner, the reasonableness of his conduct in dealing with the conflict of interest created by his consulting agreement with Duke Energy, and the significant contributions respondent made to the public, it cannot be concluded that that public protection requires disciplinary actions be taken against respondent’s license.

It was such an eloquent defense that Malcolm’s lawyers quoted it extensively in his argument to the judge that his charge be reduced to a misdemeanor before being dismissed.

- SCOTT LEWIS

    This article relates to: Opinion, Scott Lewis on Politics

    Written by K Hernandez

    0 comments