(b) a birth parent, or another person acting on the parent's behalf, may receive or accept payments authorized in subsection (a) of this section; or a provider of a service listed in subsection (a) of this section may receive or accept payments for that service (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-10-103(a-b)(2010)).

Therefore, if Kippi were acting on behalf of an adoptive parent, her payments to the client may have been permissible under the law. Moreover, because the money would have come from the adoptive parent, rather than from Kippi herself, it might not have violated any ethical rules. There does not seem to be evidence of such a scenario in this case; however, it does provide a scenario in which Kippi's actions might be considered ethical, making it clear that, to determine the ethics of the scenario, one would need to know why the client was seeking the assistance of Legal Aid.

Conclusion: It seems clear that Kippi's gift to the indigent client, which...

There may be extenuating circumstances that would make such a gift permissible, but absent such circumstances, Kippi and Legal Aid could face problems because of the gift. In any instance, a paralegal faced with a similar dilemma should approach her supervisory attorney for guidance before making any gift, monetary or in-kind, to a client, whether that client is paying for services or receiving them for free.
References

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-10-103 (2010).

Pritchett Burch PLLC v. Boyd, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 540,16;169 N.C. App. 118; 609 S.E.2d

Rev. R. Prof. Conduct N.C. St. B. 1.8(e), 2003 Ann. R. (N.C.) 625.

Rev. R. Prof. Conduct N.C. St. B. 1.8(e) cmt., 2003 Ann. R. (N.C.) 625.

Rev. R. Prof. Conduct N.C. St. B 5.3, 2003 Ann. R. (N.C.) 625.

Street v. Smart Corp, 157 N.C. App. 303, 306, 578 S.E.2d 695, 698 (2003).