In re Brooks

377 N.C. 146

856 S.E.2d 777

IN RE Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 19-225

William F. BROOKS, Respondent

No. 480A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 16, 2021

No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent.

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

¶ 1 The Judicial Standards Commission has unanimously recommended that this Court should censure Judge William F. Brooks for violations of Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C amounting to conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that constituted willful misconduct in office. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-376 and - 377, it is our duty first to independently review the record to determine whether the Commission's findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law; and then to exercise our independent judgment to consider whether the Commission's proposed sanctions are appropriate. See In re Murphy, 376 N.C. 219, 235, 852 S.E.2d 599 (2020) (citing In re Badgett , 362 N.C. 202, 207, 657 S.E.2d 346 (2008) ).

¶ 2 On 17 January 2020, Counsel for the Commission filed a Statement of Charges against respondent alleging that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and willful misconduct in office "by serving as executor for the estates of two former clients that were not members of respondent's family, collecting substantial fees or commissions for such service, and failing to properly report that income." The Commission charged that these actions in general violated Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further charged that respondent's actions in serving as executor of the estates for people not members of his family violated Canon 5D and that his failure to report extra-judicial income in excess of $2,000 violated Canon 6C.

¶ 3 Respondent filed a response on 5 March 2020 admitting that he served as a personal representative for the estates of two former family friends, who were clients, not members of his family; that he collected fees for such service; and that he inadvertently failed to disclose the receipt of said fees on his 2016 Judicial Income Report and his Statement of Economic Interest for the same year. On 13 May 2020, Counsel for the Commission and Counsel for respondent filed a Stipulation and Agreement for Stated Disposition which contained the following stipulated facts:

1. On or about April 3, 2009, Respondent, prior to his appointment as District Court Judge and while still in engaged in the private practice of law, prepared and executed wills for two clients, Robert and Mary Grace Crawford. Each will also designated the Respondent as the executor of the respective will. Respondent had no familial relationship with either Robert or Mary Grace Crawford.

2. On or about October 2, 2013, Respondent was appointed to serve as a District Court Judge in Judicial District 23. Respondent received a copy of the Code of Judicial Conduct and ethics training during Orientation for New District Court Judges in early December 2013.

3. On or about March 9, 2014, Robert Crawford passed away. Mary Grace Crawford subsequently died on November 29, 2014. While serving as District Court Judge, Respondent also served as executor of both wills. In that capacity, Respondent admitted both wills to probate and filed inventories and accountings with Wilkes County Clerk of Superior Court until both estates were closed in 2017.

4. At the time Respondent carried out his functions as the executor of the Crawford estates, Respondent knew or should have known that the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibited him from serving as the executor or any type of fiduciary for individuals other than members of Respondent's family. Respondent had known the Crawfords for many years and considered them to be like family, but acknowledges he was not related to them by blood or marriage.

5. During the week of March 14, 2016, Respondent was compensated with a $2,550 commission for serving as executor of Robert Crawford's estate and a $85,320.77 commission for serving as executor of Mary Grace Crawford's estate.

6. Respondent failed to disclose the extra-judicial income he earned from serving as the executor for Robert Crawford and Mary Grace Crawford in 2016 on his Canon 6 Extra-Judicial Income report for the 2016 calendar year and on his Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) filed with the State Ethics Commission for the 2016 calendar year.

7. Respondent knew or should have known that he was required to report the extra-judicial income he received from serving as an executor on both his Canon 6 and SEI disclosures. Respondent has now amended both his Canon 6 and Extra-judicial Income Report and SEI for 2016 calendar year to reflect his additional income.

8. The parties stipulate that the foregoing findings are established by clear and convincing evidence and agree that the factual and evidentiary stipulations shall constitute the entire evidentiary record in this matter for consideration by the hearing panel and that no other evidence will be introduced at the disciplinary recommendation hearing by either party.

The parties further made the following Stipulations of Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

1. Respondent acknowledges that the factual stipulations contained herein are sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he violated the following provisions of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct:

a. he failed to personally observe appropriate standards of conduct to ensure that integrity of judiciary is preserved in violation of Canon 1 of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct ;

b. he failed to respect and comply with the law and conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Canon 2A North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct;

c. he served as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary for estates of people who were not a member of Respondent's family in violation of Canon 5D of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct; and

d. he failed to report extra-judicial income in excess of $2,000 in violation of Canon 6C of North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.

2. Respondent further acknowledges that the stipulations contained herein are sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his actions constitute willful misconduct in office and that he willfully engaged in misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought the judicial office in disrepute in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376.

¶ 4 The Judicial Standards Commission held a hearing in this matter on 11 September 2020 at which the above stipulations were read into the record by the Commission's counsel. Respondent, who was present and represented by counsel, made a brief statement accepting responsibility for his actions, acknowledging they were wrong, and apologizing for his actions while also explaining that "I just did not realize for whatever reason that this could not be done."

¶ 5 The Commission issued its Recommendation of Judicial Discipline on 27 October 2020. Based on the stipulated facts and the associated exhibits, the Commission made findings of fact that include verbatim the stipulated facts as well as additional detail about respondent's completion of the required Canon 6 Report and SEI. Specifically, the Commission found that in his Canon 6 Report, respondent "affirmatively indicated ‘None’ in the column asking him to identify any source of extra-judicial income of more than $2,000 for 2016. On his SEI "No Change Form" for the calendar year 2016, respondent "affirmatively acknowledged that he read and understood N.C.G.S. § 138A-26 regarding concealing or failing to disclose material information and further acknowledged that knowingly concealing or failing to disclose information that is required to be disclosed is a Class I misdemeanor."

¶ 6 Based on these findings of fact, the Commission made the following Conclusions of Law:

1. Canon 5D of the Code of Judicial Conduct expressly prohibits judges from serving as "the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judge's family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties." The Commission concludes that Respondent violated Canon 5D by serving as the executor of the two Crawford estates notwithstanding that fact that he knew or should have known that such service was expressly prohibited.

2. Canon 6C of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to make a public report each year of "the name and nature of any source or activity from which the judge received more than $2,000 in income during the calendar year for which the report is filed." Canon 6C ensures "transparency in a judge's financial and remunerative activities outside of the judicial office to ascertain potential conflicts of interest, avoid corruption and maintain public confidence in the impartiality, integrity and independence of the state's judiciary." In re Mack , 369 N.C. 236, 242, 794 S.E.2d 266, 270 (2016) (adopting the Commission's findings and conclusions). The Commission concludes that Respondent violated Canon 6C by affirmatively representing on his Canon 6 Report that he had no outside income to report for 2016 when he knew that he had received nearly $90,000 in outside income due to his service as the executor of the Crawford estates.

3. Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires that "[a] judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." As a judge of the General Court of Justice, Respondent is a "covered person" under the State Government Ethics Act and is required to file a Statement of

...