In re Stone, 373 N.C. 368

Background

Michael A. Stone was sworn in as a district court judge on August 21, 2014; a former client, Dahndra Moore, filed a fee-dispute with the State Bar in May 2017 about fees paid to Stone when he withdrew from representation in 2014.
Stone, lacking independent recollection and case files, sought help from his former paralegal, who prepared a statement and (without Stone’s knowledge) forged a third-party signature contained in Stone’s response to the State Bar.
Stone responded to the State Bar on official judicial letterhead and invoked his judicial title while addressing a dispute arising from his private-practice work; his response included detailed time entries and factual assertions that he could not independently recall or document.
The State Bar’s Fee Dispute program closed the dispute, but later discovered the forged signature and opened a grievance; Stone cooperated with the Judicial Standards Commission, admitted his factual stipulations, and acknowledged his statements were misleading or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
The Judicial Standards Commission found clear and convincing evidence that Stone’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 2B, and constituted willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; it recommended censure.
The North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s findings and conclusions and ordered that Stone be censured for the cited violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.

Issues

Issue	Commission's Argument	Stone's Argument	Held
Use of judicial letterhead/title in a personal fee dispute	Impermissibly lent judicial prestige to a private matter; violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B	Believed letterhead/title appropriate because State Bar addressed him as “Judge” and it was a government agency	Court held use of judicial letterhead/title violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B
Misleading assertions about services, time, and plea negotiations	Statements were misleading or made with reckless disregard for the truth and unsupported by recollection or records; amounted to willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice	Did not intend to deceive; relied on memory review and paralegal assistance; unaware of the forgery	Court held assertions were misleading/reckless and constituted willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under § 7A-376
Effect of the paralegal’s forgery on Stone’s culpability	Forgery did not absolve Stone because he submitted and relied on false/unsupported statements while invoking judicial office	Not responsible for the forgery and lacked knowledge of it	Court found forgery did not negate that Stone willfully made misleading assertions and that he should have had records or independent recollection
Appropriate discipline	Recommend censure based on isolated nature, cooperation, remorse, and lack of prior pattern	Agreed and did not contest findings; accepted stipulated disposition	Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation and censured Stone

Key Cases Cited

In re Edens, 290 N.C. 299 (1976) (defines “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” and contrasts willful misconduct with negligence)
In re Martin, 302 N.C. 299 (1981) (willful misconduct not limited to official courtroom hours; judge’s conduct outside court may justify discipline)
In re Crutchfield, 289 N.C. 597 (1975) (discipline aims to preserve public confidence and integrity of judiciary rather than primarily to punish)
In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202 (2008) (Supreme Court reviews Commission recommendations de novo and may accept, reject, or modify)
In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418 (2012) (explains Court’s role when acting on Commission recommendations)