In re Clontz, 376 N.C. 128

On July 18, 2018 Judge Edwin D. Clontz called a probable-cause hearing after defense counsel Roger Smith (court-appointed for Jermaine Logan) failed to return to court by 2:50 p.m. following a 2:00 p.m. recess.
Clontz knew the defendant was represented but proceeded to call the State’s witnesses, with the defendant remaining handcuffed in a nearby holding cell and cross-examining through a barred window without pen or paper.
After the State rested, Clontz refused to allow the defendant to testify (citing risk of self-incrimination), found probable cause, and bound the case over to superior court; he later reduced bond.
The Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) found Clontz acted to “make a point” about counsel tardiness, concluded he violated Canons 2A and 3A(4) (and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376(b)), and recommended a public reprimand.
The North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s findings, rejected Clontz’s statutory-interpretation defense, and ordered a public reprimand; Justice Earls (joined by two justices) dissented, advocating a private letter of caution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proceeding with a probable-cause hearing while defendant’s counsel was absent violated Canons 2A and 3A(4)	JSC: Clontz knowingly forced a represented defendant to proceed, denied opportunity to be heard, interfered with attorney-client relationship, undermining public confidence	Clontz: He reasonably interpreted statutes permitting proceeding without counsel and/or prohibiting continuance	Court: Adopted JSC — conduct violated Canons 2A and 3A(4) and was prejudicial to administration of justice
Whether a good-faith legal error or statutory misreading shields judge from discipline	JSC: Motive not dispositive; objective effect on public confidence controls; legal error doesn’t preclude sanction	Clontz: Acted under an objectively reasonable statutory interpretation (citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-606 and § 15A-611)	Court: Rejected Clontz’s statutory reading; judge failed to ascertain indigency/waiver or take appropriate action and legal error does not bar discipline
Whether the misconduct warranted a public reprimand versus lesser sanction	JSC: Misconduct judged "minor" (limited prejudice, bond reduced, isolated incident, mitigating affidavits) — recommended public reprimand	Clontz / dissent: Incident was isolated and not as egregious as other public-reprimand cases; a private letter would suffice	Court: Adopted JSC recommendation and issued a public reprimand; dissent favored private caution

In re Edens, 290 N.C. 299 (defines "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" by reference to objective effect on public esteem)
In re Crutchfield, 289 N.C. 597 (describes purpose of judicial discipline to maintain public confidence and integrity)
In re Stone, 373 N.C. 368 (Court may adopt or reject Commission findings and recommend sanctions)
In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418 (Court reviews Commission findings de novo and may make independent disciplinary judgments)
State v. Simpkins, 373 N.C. 530 (discusses waiver-of-counsel analysis and contrasts acceptable judicial steps when a waiver is sought)
In re Smith, 372 N.C. 123 (example of public reprimand for persistent unjudicial conduct affecting confidence in judiciary)
In re Mack, 369 N.C. 236 (public reprimand for conduct undermining judicial impartiality and ethics)