In 1971, the Courts Commission made a report to the North Carolina General Assembly in which it recommended adoption of a constitutional amendment that would allow for a “workable method for censuring and removing unworthy or disabled judges in North Carolina.” See Report of the Courts Commission to the North Carolina General Assembly, at 26 (1971) (hereinafter “Report”). At that time, the North Carolina Constitution set forth two methods by which a superior court or appellate judge or justice could be removed from office: by impeachment or by joint resolution of the General Assembly based on the judge’s mental or physical incapacity. N.C. Const. Art. IV, Section 17 (1971). There was no process for judicial discipline of such judges short of removal from office. (The 1971 Constitution did permit the General Assembly to provide by general law for the removal of district court judges, who were part of the District Court Division created by that Constitution.)

The Courts Commission deemed impeachment “ill-suited” and “ineffective,” and noted that no judge had been removed pursuant to that procedure since 1868 (and perhaps not ever, since before that time judges were selected by joint vote of the members of the General Assembly). Report at 19. It characterized the joint resolution procedure, limited to disability cases, as “even less effective,” stating that it had never been used in North Carolina and that “[i]ts use is so unlikely that it lacks even a deterrent effect.” Id. at 20.

The Courts Commission stated that the inadequacy of then-existing methods for addressing judicial misconduct “leaves all questions of fitness and conduct to the conscience of the judge or the judgment – frequently uninformed – of the electorate.” Id. at 20-21. The result, it its view, was that problems of judicial fitness went unresolved and the “erring tendencies of the one percent tarnish the dedication of the ninety-nine percent, and public esteem in the judiciary is diminished.” Id. at 21.

Constitutional Amendment. The constitutional amendment recommended by the Courts Commission was enacted by the General Assembly and adopted by the voters, effective January 1, 1973. It amended Article IV, Section 17 to provide, in relevant part:

(2) Additional method of removal of Judges. The General Assembly shall prescribe a procedure, in addition to impeachment and address set forth in this Section, for the removal of a Justice or Judge of the General Court of Justice for mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent, and for the censure and removal of a Justice or Judge of the General Court of Justice for wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Creation of the Judicial Standards Commission. The Courts Commission had further proposed that the General Assembly create a Judicial Standards Commission to investigate misconduct by judges and recommend appropriate discipline. The Courts Commission set forth a plan for the appropriate membership of that body and prescribed how it might go about its work. Under the Courts Commission plan, the proceedings of the Judicial Standards Commission “would be confidential until such time as it made its final recommendations to the Supreme Court.” Report, at 29. This provision was “vital, as allegations of misconduct are frequently groundless, and judges under investigation are entitled to this protection until such time as the charges are found to be supported.” Id. at 29-30. Moreover, the authors thought “public confidence in the integrity of the courts . . . should not be shaken without reason.” Id. at 30.

Most of the Courts Commission’s recommendations were incorporated in the General Assembly’s 1971 act creating the Judicial Standards Commission and setting forth grounds for judicial discipline. See S.L. 1971, c. 590 (adding Article 30 of Chapter 7A of the General Statutes).

While the composition, staff, and procedures of the Judicial Standards Commission have changed over the fifty-plus years following its creation, it continues to serve the purposes envisioned by the Courts Commission by providing an accessible forum for receiving complaints and investigating physical and mental infirmities and misconduct by a judge. Today the Judicial Standards Commission also provides formal and informal advisory opinions and instructs judges regarding the Code of Judicial Conduct. That Code was first adopted by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1973 alongside the first set of rules for the Judicial Standards Commission. 283 N.C. 763-782. Violation of the Code’s provisions are grounds for judicial discipline. North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, Preamble, at 4.

The confidentiality recommended by the Courts Commission “to protect the good judge against unjustified public attack” remains a hallmark of disciplinary proceedings. Report at 25. Judicial Standards Commission investigations and proceedings are confidential. G.S. 7A-377(a1). Only if the North Carolina Supreme Court issues a public reprimand, or censures, suspends, or removes a judge from office do the pleadings and record filed with the court lose their confidential status. G.S. 7A-377(a6).

Since 2011, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the procedure for discipline of judges in Article 30 of Chapter 7A also has applied to commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Industrial Commission. See G.S. 97-78.1.

Current work. Annual reports published by the Judicial Standards Commission, the latest of which was published in 2024, set forth its membership and provide insight into the nature and volume of its current work.

Membership and staff of the Judicial Standards Commission. The composition of the Judicial Standards Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) is prescribed by G.S. 7A-375, which provides for a fourteen-member commission with members appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, the General Assembly, and the Governor. The Chief Justice appoints:

• a court of appeals judge who serves as its chair (currently Judge Jeff Carpenter),
• a court of appeals judge who serves as vice-chair (currently Judge Julee Flood),
• two superior court judges (currently Judges Dawn Layton and Edwin Wilson), and
• two district court judges (currently Judges Scott Ussery and Angelica McIntyre).

The General Assembly appoints:

• two superior court judges (currently Judges Ashley Gore and Andrew Womble), and
• two district court judges (currently Judges Rashad Hauther and Justin Brackett), and
•  two citizens who are not active or retired judges (currently Ronald Smith and John Check).

And the Governor appoints:

• two citizens who are not active or retired judges (currently Michael Grace and Mark Calloway).

The court of appeals judges serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. Other members have six-year terms.

The Commission is staffed by an executive director (Patricia Flood), as well as commission counsel and an investigator. The duties assigned to those positions along with the general procedures by which the Commission operates are spelled out in the Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission promulgated by the North Carolina Supreme Court on September 3, 2024.

Investigatory process. The Commission may consider a written complaint filed by “[a]ny citizen of the State” or may make an investigation on its own motion. G.S. 7A-377(a). The Commission is “limited to reviewing judicial conduct, not matters of law.” Id.

Complaints initially are reviewed by the executive director and commission counsel. If that review does not disclose facts indicating that a judge has engaged in conduct in violation of the Code or suffers from a disability that seriously interferes with the judge’s judicial duties or if the allegations in the written complaint are obviously unfounded or frivolous, then the presiding chairperson or vice-chairperson of an investigative panel of commission members must summarily dismiss the complaint (subject to the right of a member of the panel to review the complaint and request further consideration of the matter). See Rule 9, Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission. If a written complaint is not summarily dismissed or the Commission brings its own motion based on credible information, then, by affirmative vote of at least five members, the investigative panel may dismiss the complaint or authorize a preliminary or formal investigation. See Rules 9, 10, Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission.

After a formal investigation, an investigative panel of the Commission may issue a private letter of caution to a judge if it determines that the judge engaged in conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct but the conduct does not warrant a recommendation of discipline by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Six complaints were dismissed in 2024 with a letter of caution.

Disciplinary proceedings. An investigative panel also may, upon the affirmative vote of at least five members, authorize initiation of a disciplinary or disability proceeding, which begins with the filing of a statement of charges. That authorization constitutes a finding that probable cause exists to believe that a judge engaged in conduct that warrants public discipline by the North Carolina Supreme Court or that the judge suffers from a disability that warrants suspension or removal. Four statements of charges were issued in 2024. Such charges are followed by a disciplinary hearing and then either a recommendation to the supreme court or dismissal (which may be accompanied by a private letter of caution). See Rule 21, Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission. The Commission conducted three disciplinary hearings in 2024 and issued three recommendations for public discipline.

The North Carolina Supreme Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction in reviewing a recommendation from the Commission, and, as such, is not bound by the Commission’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. See In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 429 (2012). Moreover, the supreme court is not bound by the Commission’s recommendations regarding the appropriate disciplinary action. Id. 

The supreme court issued one disciplinary decision in 2024, suspending District Court Judge Angela Foster for 120 days without pay for her conduct in contacting a magistrate in connection with the arrest of her son and requesting that the magistrate change the conditions of pretrial release). See In re Foster, 385 N.C. 675 (2024). In 2025, the court censured District Court Judge Jason Kimble for conduct related to his arrest for and conviction of driving while impaired. See In re Kimble, 387 N.C. 462 (2025).

Trends. The number of complaints filed with the Commission continues to rise. There were 675 new complaints filed in 2024, a modest increase from the 653 filed in 2023 and a sharp increase from the 470 filed in 2022. The good news for jurists is that most complaints continue to be dismissed after initial review or preliminary investigation. In 2024, 753 complaints were pending before the Commission (some were matters carried over from 2023). Of those complaints, 633 were dismissed after initial review, and another 32 were dismissed after preliminary investigation. According to the 2024 annual report, most dismissals occur because “the complaint alleged legal error that the Commission has no jurisdiction to investigate, the allegations were too vague to evaluate, or a preliminary investigation revealed that the allegations . . . lacked credibility or could not be substantiated after a review of the records of the subject court proceedings.” North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission Annual Report 2024 at 7. In 2024, as in previous years, most complaints were made by either domestic litigants or criminal defendants, and most were levied against district court judges.