In re Henderson, 371 N.C. 45

Judge Gary L. Henderson presided over a civil hearing concluding on November 5, 2014, with the parties reserving ruling on a motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
Attorneys submitted written closing arguments in December 2014; Respondent reserved ruling but did not issue an order for over two years and three months.
Repeated inquiries from defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel, the pro se litigant (after counsel withdrew), and the Chief District Court Judge between June 2015 and October 2016 went largely unanswered or were met with promises unfulfilled; Respondent admitted he had been “dragging [his] feet” and cited “dread” of the case.
The Judicial Standards Commission investigated; Respondent cooperated, stipulated to the facts, admitted error and remorse, and agreed the appropriate discipline was a public reprimand.
The Commission found violations of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(3), 3A(5), and 3B(1) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and concluded the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376(b).
The North Carolina Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, adopted the Commission’s findings and conclusions, and ordered a public reprimand on May 11, 2018.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Respondent’s prolonged delay in issuing a ruling violated the Code of Judicial Conduct	Delay (over 2 years) without justification violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A(3), 3A(5), 3B(1) and was prejudicial to administration of justice	Respondent stipulated facts, admitted error and remorse; mitigation facts (good reputation, isolated incident, cooperation)	Court adopted Commission: delay violated listed Canons and § 7A-376(b)
Whether the Commission’s factual findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence	Facts supported by communications, timeline, counsel withdrawals, and admissions	No contest to findings; Respondent did not challenge findings	Court found findings supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence and adopted them
Appropriate discipline for the misconduct	Public reprimand appropriate given nature of misconduct and mitigating factors	Respondent agreed public reprimand was appropriate	Court imposed a public reprimand
Whether the Supreme Court should defer to or independently review the Commission’s recommendation	Commission’s recommendation should be evaluated but is entitled to deference if supported	N/A—Respondent did not oppose	Court performed independent review, adopted Commission’s findings and recommendation

In re Mack, 369 N.C. 236, 794 S.E.2d 266 (discussing Supreme Court’s role in independent review of Commission recommendations)
In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 722 S.E.2d 496 (same; outlines scope of review and standards for adopting Commission findings)