376 N.C. 219
N.C.2020Background
- This is a disciplinary proceeding against Court of Appeals Judge J. Hunter Murphy arising from a Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) recommendation (Sept. 13, 2019) that he be censured for violating Canons 1, 2B, 3A(3), and 3B(2) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376 for willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation and issued a censure on Dec. 15, 2020.
- Murphy hired a longtime personal friend, Ben Tuite, as executive assistant and law clerk; Tuite repeatedly used profanity, bullied and intimidated clerks, made sexually inappropriate remarks, produced poor and dishonest work (including cite‑checking failures that led to a withdrawn opinion).
- Multiple law clerks complained repeatedly to Murphy about Tuite’s profanity, dishonesty, bullying, and sexual comments; two female clerks resigned early or sought other jobs because they felt unsafe and unsupported.
- Murphy was present for or informed of many incidents but repeatedly failed to discipline or correct Tuite, reassured Tuite his job was secure, and downplayed/minimized reports to AOC Human Resources and to the JSC—at times providing misleading statements that affected the investigation.
- AOC HR ultimately placed Tuite on investigatory leave; with continued pressure Murphy asked Tuite to resign on January 5, 2018. The JSC found clear and convincing evidence of supervisory failures, lack of candor, and that Murphy’s friendship with Tuite improperly influenced his judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) / Plaintiff's Argument | Murphy / Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy violated Canons 1, 2B, 3A(3), 3B(2) | Murphy failed to establish and enforce appropriate standards, allowed friendship to influence decisions, refused to require staff professionalism or diligence | Challenges that findings are managerial or conclusory and that many acts were Tuite’s alone | Court held Murphy violated Canons 1, 2B, 3A(3), and 3B(2) based on clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether JSC’s investigatory/prosecutorial role violated due process | JSC acted within statutory authority; Supreme Court review cures any partiality | Argued dual investigative/prosecutorial role denied a fair process | Court rejected due process claim, citing precedent that recommendation authority plus appellate review is permissible |
| Whether findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence | Clerks’ consistent testimony, HR evidence, and communications show profanity, dishonesty, bullying, and Murphy’s lack of candor | Contended specific findings were exaggerated and that Murphy did not mislead HR/Commission | Court found the record supported the Commission’s findings by clear and convincing evidence and adopted them |
| Appropriate sanction: censure vs. suspension/removal | JSC recommended public censure for willful misconduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Murphy argued findings insufficient to warrant discipline | Court concluded censure appropriate; misconduct did not merit suspension or removal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Edens, 290 N.C. 299 (1976) (defines “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” and explains focus on conduct and its impact on public esteem for the judiciary)
- In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235 (1977) (upholds agency combination of investigatory and recommending functions; appellate review cures possible partiality)
- In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202 (2008) (describes Supreme Court’s role in reviewing JSC recommendations and exercising independent judgment on findings and sanctions)