Judge Suspended

The North Carolina Supreme Court has suspended a General Court of Justice, District Court Division judge for 120 days without compensation

Our guidepost in determining the appropriate sanctions is the impact of the conduct on public confidence in our judicial system and ensuring the honor and integrity of judges who serve the people of this state. In re Crutchfield, 289 N.C. at 602. The stipulations in this matter establish judicial conduct troubling enough to warrant suspension, and this Court has suspended judges where a pattern of problematic conduct has been identified. See, e.g., In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. at 426–27, 431–32 (suspending a judge engaged in a pattern of transferring traffic tickets of friends and family to her docket with the understanding the tickets would be resolved with a favorable outcome). Here, respondent was also previously sanctioned for her conduct. In re Foster, 373 N.C. 29, 31-33, 40 (2019) (censuring respondent for holding a hearing without notice, placing a mother in jail without cause and then lecturing the mother’s fifteen-year-old children in an effort to convince them to exercise visitation with their father). Further, while on notice of Inquiry No. 22-073, she engaged in the conduct described in Inquiry No. 22-395. The stipulated conduct justifies the recommended discipline.

We appreciate respondent’s cooperation with the Commission during the pendency of these proceedings, her candor, her acknowledgment of responsibility for her conduct, and her completion of additional training on ethics and professionalism. Respondent recognizes that her conduct warrants disciplinary consequences and agreed to accept the recommended disciplinary action. Weighing the severity and extent of respondent’s misconduct against her acknowledgement and cooperation, we conclude that the Commission’s recommendation of a 120-day suspension is appropriate and supported by the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Misconduct

On 7 July 2022, Commission Counsel filed a Statement of Charges against respondent in Inquiry No. 22-073. The charges alleged that respondent had engaged in conduct inappropriate to her office when she called the Wake County Magistrate’s Office on 3 March 2022. During the call, respondent utilized her judicial title to inquire about the custody status of her son without disclosing the familial relationship. Further, respondent yelled at the magistrate and demanded a bond reduction based upon inaccurate and incomplete information.

Before Inquiry No. 22-073 was resolved, Commission Counsel filed another Statement of Charges against respondent in Inquiry No. 22-395 on 23 February 2023. The charges alleged that respondent had demanded, without notifying her chief district court judge, that an assistant district attorney (ADA) and a presiding magistrate close their administrative courtroom for her own use, despite an active administrative order mandating that it stay open. The conduct resulted in over one hundred cases being continued.

(Mike Frisch)