In re Pool

858 S.E.2d 771

IN RE Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Nos. 19-136 & 19-242

C. Randy POOL, Respondent

No. 14A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed June 11, 2021

No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent.

ORDER OF CENSURE

¶ 1 By the recommendation of the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission (the Commission), the issue before this Court is whether Judge C. Randy Pool (respondent) should be censured for violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), and 3A(5) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, and pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

¶ 2 On 21 August 2019, the Commission filed a Statement of Charges against respondent alleging violations of Canons 1, 2A, and 2B. On 7 October 2019, respondent filed his answer. On 19 March 2020, the Commission filed an Amended Statement of Charges that included new allegations, charging respondent with violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), and 3A(5) in the following manner:

(1) by engaging in sexual misconduct while serving as and exploiting his position as Chief Judge of his judicial district through a pattern of predatory sexual advances towards numerous women in Respondent's community, many of whom were involved in matters pending in the district where Respondent served as Chief Judge; (2) by demonstrating a pattern of failing to diligently discharge his judicial duties for the period from at least November 2016 until his retirement in November 2019; (3) by misusing the prestige of his judicial office to solicit assistance from local law enforcement relating to the attempted extortion of Respondent^{[1 ]} ...; (4) by making material misrepresentations to law enforcement agents during the investigation of [an] attempt to extort money from Respondent; and (5) by making material misrepresentations to the Commission during its investigation into Inquiry No. 19-136.

¶ 3 On 9 November 2020, the Commission and respondent entered into a Stipulation Pursuant to Commission Rule 18 (the Stipulation). The parties stipulated to the following findings of fact:

1. Respondent was first appointed to the district court in 1999 and served as the Chief Judge of District 29A from 2006 until his retirement effective December 1, 2019.

....

3. For the period beginning in 2016/2017 through June 2019, Respondent was an active user of the social media platform Facebook ("FB") and had a single FB account for both personal and campaign purposes. Respondent ceased the use of his FB account in or about June 2019.

4. A review of Respondent's Facebook activity for the period from November 1, 2018 through May 9, 2019 establishes that: Respondent identified himself on his Facebook page as the Chief District Court Judge located in Marion, North Carolina; Respondent's Facebook page was public and open to anyone to see his posts and comments; Respondent had thousands of "friends" on Facebook; and Respondent was a very active user of Facebook, frequently posting his own photos or comments or commenting on posts of other Facebook users.

....

6. Although some of Respondent's FB messages have been deleted, a review of Respondent's existing FB messages during the period from November 2018 to May 2019 shows that Respondent, who is married, knowingly and willfully initiated and engaged in conversations with at least 35 different women that ranged from inappropriate and flirtatious to sexually explicit. In some cases, Respondent and the female also had telephone conversations, exchanged texts and had personal meetings (including in some cases sexual encounters).

7. Respondent knowingly and willfully engaged in FB conversations of a sexual nature with 12 women during the period from at least November 2018 through July 2019^[2] ....

....

9. In addition ..., Respondent also made either inappropriate or flirtatious comments through FB messages to women who were required to appear or work in Respondent's court in their professional capacities[.]

....

11. Respondent's FB records from the period from November 2018 to May 2019 when compared to official reports of Respondent's time on the bench show that Respondent engaged in extensive FB activity, including posts, comments and private messages, while Respondent was reported as being in court. Respondent's FB records also establish that Respondent routinely sought to arrange personal meetings with women he contacted on FB either during breaks and recesses from court, before court convened or immediately after court adjourned. Court personnel assigned in Respondent's courtroom in McDowell County regularly observed that Respondent was frequently on his cell phone while on the bench and would often "disappear" during recesses and lunch breaks, and that Respondent would often recuse in cases where the stated reason appeared to be very tenuous, and at other times would continue cases at such a high rate that it would make their jobs more difficult. While Respondent did not engage in any FB or other conversations on his cell phone at times when he was actively presiding in a case, he did use his cell phone extensively during times on the bench that did not require his direct attention.

....

26. Prior to the incidents described herein that began in or about 2017, Respondent had enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a judge of his district for almost twenty years. As Chief District Court Judge, Respondent made a number of significant contributions to the administration of justice during his 13 years in that position. Upon being named Chief Judge, Respondent immediately instituted a Continuance Policy for his district that all judges followed and successfully eliminated significant back log in his district. Respondent also created a new Truancy Court for McDowell and Rutherford County at least twelve years ago where he and his colleagues volunteered their time after court to meet with parents, grandparents and students to emphasize and encourage students to stay in school, be present each day, and to work hard to get a good education.

27. Respondent has also actively been engaged in his community....

28. Other than as set forth herein, Respondent has enjoyed a good reputation as a judge for being professional and for diligently discharging his judicial duties while presiding in court.

29. Respondent has also undertaken significant efforts to determine the cause of his sexual misconduct and to address the problems in his personal life.... His primary care physician conducted a physical examination in early October 2020 and ordered an MRI, which showed mild atrophy or shrinkage of the front and the left temporal lobes of his brain.... [O]n or about October 20, 2020, Respondent was evaluated by a physician .... That evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of early stage Frontotemporal Dementia, a disease which can manifest itself through a lack of control of sexual impulses....Frontotemporal Dementia is also recognized as a progressive and terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6–8 years after symptoms manifest ....

....

31. Respondent agrees that based upon the nature of his misconduct and his recent diagnosis of early signs of dementia, he will not seek a commission as an emergency judge or a retired recall judge, nor will he attend future judicial conferences or continuing judicial education (CJE) programs offered to judges of the State of North Carolina.

¶ 4 The parties further stipulated to the following Code and statutory violations:

1. Respondent acknowledges and agrees 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 the integrity of the judiciary is preserved in violation of Canon 1 ;

b. he failed to 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;

c. he allowed his personal relationships ... to influence his official judgment and conduct, in violation of Canon 2B;

d. he abused the prestige of his judicial office in seeking favors and influence in the handling of the investigation by local law enforcement and the SBI in violation of Canon 2B;

e. he engaged in improper ex parte or other communications concerning pending proceedings in violation of Canon 3A(4);

f. his Facebook activity while in court and consistent efforts to take breaks from court to meet women interfered with his duty to diligently discharge his judicial duties in violation of Canon 3A(5).

2. Respondent further acknowledges and agrees 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 into disrepute in violation of N.C.[G.S.] § 7A-376.

¶ 5 On 13 November 2020, the Commission held a disciplinary hearing in this matter.

¶ 6 On 18 December 2020, the Commission filed its Recommendation of Judicial Discipline. The Commission made the following conclusions of law:

1. Commission Counsel, Respondent and Counsel for Respondent, all of whom executed the Stipulation, agreed that the factual stipulations contained therein were sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent had violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4) and 3A(5) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.... Upon its independent review of the stipulated facts and the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commission agrees.

2. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge must "participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, appropriate standards of conduct to ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary shall be preserved." Canon 2A of the Code

...