A hollow victory for a good attorney

Christine Mumma had good reason to feel relieved this week. But she didn’t have much reason to feel good.

Mumma, an N.C. attorney and director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, faced the possible loss of her license at a disciplinary hearing Thursday for inappropriately having a water bottle tested for DNA while working a case two years ago. Instead, a three-member panel of the N.C. State Bar issued a written admonition, the lowest-level penalty she could receive.

That would explain why Mumma received a burst of applause from supporters as the hearing ended in Raleigh. Those same supporters argued, however, that the hearing never should have happened. They suspected Mumma was singled out because her work often exposes prosecutorial misconduct. They railed against punishing an attorney whose efforts have brought freedom to those who otherwise had little hope.

It’s true that Mumma is a fine attorney who does exemplary and important work. None of which is reason enough to excuse a wrong.

The incident in question occurred in 2013, while Mumma was working on the case of Joseph Sledge, who had served close to 40 years in prison for the murders of a Bladen County mother and her adult daughter. Sledge was eventually exonerated and released.

That October, Mumma visited the home of Marie Andrus, whose brothers also had been suspects in that double homicide. Mumma took a water bottle from the home, then had it tested for DNA, all without permission from Andrus.

Mumma said she accidentally took the wrong water bottle that day, but she did acknowledge the DNA test, which came back inconclusive and did not factor in Sledge’s exoneration.

At Mumma’s disciplinary hearing, veteran attorneys justified her behavior, saying she had to weigh Andrus’ right to privacy against Sledge remaining in prison the rest of his life.

“She has a duty to Miss Andrus, but she has a greater duty to an innocent man she has represented for 10 years,” said Lane Williamson, a former member of the State Bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission, according to WRAL.

In other words: The ends justify the means.

Others complained that the bar hasn’t shown the same fervor in pursuing prosecutors who might have misbehaved, be it in the Sledge case or others. We recognize this logic. It’s similar to speeders who balk at their tickets because others were going just as fast or faster.

It’s true that Mumma’s work often exposes sloppiness or misconduct on the part of police and prosecutors. We’ve written in this space that such bad behavior should be punished.

But those who complain about the selective ethics of prosecutors shouldn’t be willing to excuse the same for Mumma. It doesn’t matter that her cause is noble. It doesn’t matter that prosecutors sometimes go far over the ethical line she merely stepped on.

What she did was wrong, and it undermines the same faith in justice that we and others bring up when prosecutors flout the law.

It also was selfish. This lapse in judgment could have cost Mumma her license, which would have deprived future clients from the chance at freedom she might provide them.

We’re glad that didn’t happen, and that Mumma can continue her fine work. We hope, as we do for everyone, that she does it the right way.

This story was originally published January 15, 2016 at 5:19 PM with the headline "A hollow victory for a good attorney."