372 N.C. 123
N.C.2019Background
- April M. Smith, a Cumberland County District Court judge elected in 2014, was the subject of a Judicial Standards Commission investigation and entered a stipulated disposition admitting certain facts.
- Smith developed a deteriorating relationship with the Chief District Court Judge beginning in 2015, driven by perceived unfair court assignments and scheduling disputes.
- During 2015–2017 Smith made repeated complaints to judges, staff, retired judges, and local attorneys, at times suggesting racial motivation for assignments, and sought help from the AOC and JSC; efforts at mediation through the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism were not completed.
- Court records showed Smith had more days off and presided over fewer sessions than many colleagues; earlier higher assignments to a difficult courtroom were attributable in part to pre-existing scheduling and conflict-avoidance under a prior chief judge.
- The Commission found Smith sometimes curtailed court sessions for personal reasons, directed staff to leave during sessions, and created perceptions of avoiding judicial duties; the bar requested she be removed from domestic dockets.
- The Commission concluded Smith violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A(3), and 3B(1) and recommended a public reprimand; the Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s findings and imposed a public reprimand.
Issues
| Issue | Commission's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith violated Canon 1 (uphold integrity and independence of judiciary) | Pattern of pervasive complaints attacking Chief Judge undermined judicial integrity | Smith acknowledged behavior and attributed some conduct to frustration and health issues | Violation found; Canon 1 breached |
| Whether Smith violated Canon 2A (avoid impropriety; promote public confidence) | Repeated public complaints and imputations of bias eroded public confidence | Smith cooperated with inquiry and expressed regret, cited health as mitigating | Violation found; Canon 2A breached |
| Whether Smith violated Canon 3A(3) & 3B(1) (courtesy, diligence, administrative cooperation) | Rushing or adjourning court for personal appointments, directing staff off duty, and impeding administrative duties showed lack of patience, courtesy, and administrative cooperation | Smith contended she worked diligently and had scheduling/health needs; admitted some conduct and agreed to remedial steps | Violations found of both Canons 3A(3) and 3B(1) |
| Appropriate discipline for misconduct amounting to conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Misconduct was more than a single incident but not willful; public reprimand appropriate given facts and mitigation | Smith accepted the Stipulation, did not contest findings, expressed remorse, and agreed to CJCP assistance | Supreme Court adopted recommendation and publicly reprimanded Smith |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Belk, 364 N.C. 114, 690 S.E.2d 685 (N.C. 2012) (single, isolated coworker confrontation may not warrant discipline)
- In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 482, 666 S.E.2d 743 (N.C. 2008) (Supreme Court reviews JSC recommendations in original jurisdiction and judges cannot excuse misconduct by inexperience)
- In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 722 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. 2012) (describes Supreme Court’s role reviewing JSC recommendations)
- In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246 (N.C. 1977) (definition and standard for willful misconduct in office)