Case Title: In re Pool

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14A21

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-61 
No. 14A21 
Filed 11 June 2021 
IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NOS. 19-136 & 19-242 
 
 
 
C. RANDY POOL, Respondent 
 
 
This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and -377 upon 
a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission entered on 18 December 
2020 that Respondent C. Randy Pool, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District 
Court Division, Judicial District 29A, be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 
1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), and 3A(5) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into 
disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.  This matter was calendared for argument 
in the Supreme Court on 27 April 2021 but determined on the record without briefs 
or oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate 
Procedure and Rule 2(c) of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of Recommendations 
of the Judicial Standards Commission.  
 
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 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
(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.  
                                            
1 Respondent’s inappropriate electronic communications and exchange of nude 
photographs resulted in an extortion attempt by one woman, which led to an investigation 
by law enforcement agencies. 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 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). 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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, 
                                            
2 While the parties stipulated to the fact that respondent stopped using his FB account 
in or about June 2019, the stiplations indicate that one exchange included text messages that 
were sent in July 2019.  From November 2018 through May 2019, respondent communicated, 
via Facebook, through inappropriate messages with at least sixteen additional women, often 
seeking photographs of them or sharing photographs of himself.  In addition, respondent had 
ex parte discussions through Facebook regarding pending proceedings in his district. 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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. . . . 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 of Judicial Conduct 
requires that a judge “should conduct himself/herself at all 
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  The 
Commission concludes that Respondent’s failure to 
personally observe appropriate standards of conduct in and 
out of the courtroom, his conduct in creating the perception 
among local law enforcement that he wanted a favor in the 
matter involving Ms. [T.], and his conduct in making 
misleading statements to the SBI and the Commission 
violated Canon 1 and Canon 2A.  
3. 
Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides 
that a judge “should not lend the prestige of the judge’s 
office to advance the private interest of others.”  The 
Commission concludes that Respondent violated Canon 2B 
by using his office to assist various female litigants as 
found in the Findings of Fact, including his conduct in 
using his position as Chief Judge to direct a local attorney 
to assist a litigant with whom Respondent was having a 
sexual relationship and to otherwise use his office to assist 
her in her divorce proceeding. 
4. 
Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct 
provides that “except as authorized by law, [a judge may] 
neither knowingly initiate nor knowingly consider ex parte 
or 
other 
communications 
concerning 
a 
pending 
proceeding.”  The Commission concludes that Respondent 
violated Canon 3A(4) through his conversations with the 
women as described herein relating to pending proceedings 
in his district. 
5. 
Canon 3A(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct 
provides that a “judge should dispose promptly of the 
business of the court.”  The Commission concludes that the 
Stipulation of Facts establishes that Respondent violated 
Canon 3A(5) through his constant cell phone use on the 
bench, frequent breaks to have conversations or physical 
encounters with women he contacted through Facebook, 
and frequent continuances and recusals (some of which 
were created by his sexual misconduct). 
6. 
The Preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct 
provides that a “violation of this Code of Judicial Conduct 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
may be deemed conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or 
willful misconduct in office, or otherwise as grounds for 
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Article 30 of Chapter 
7A of the General Statutes of North Carolina.”  In addition, 
Respondent has stipulated not only to his violations of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct, but also to a finding that his 
conduct 
amounted 
to 
conduct 
prejudicial 
to 
the 
administration of justice and willful misconduct in 
office. . . . The Commission in its independent review of the 
stipulated facts and exhibits and the governing law also 
concludes that Respondent’s conduct rises to the level of 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and 
willful misconduct in office.  
7. 
The Supreme Court defined conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice in In re Edens, 290 N.C. 299, 
226 S.E.2d 5 (1976) as “conduct which a judge undertakes 
in good faith but which nevertheless would appear to an 
objective observer to be not only unjudicial conduct but 
conduct prejudicial to the public esteem for the judicial 
office.”  Id. at 305, 226 S.E.2d at 9.  As such, rather than 
evaluate the motives of the judge, a finding of conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice requires an 
objective review of “the conduct itself, the results thereof, 
and the impact such conduct might reasonably have upon 
knowledgeable observers.”  Id. at 306, 226 S.E.2d at 9 
(internal citations and quotations omitted).  Respondent’s 
objective 
conduct 
in 
initiating 
and 
engaging 
in 
inappropriate conversations and relationships with women 
through 
FB 
messages, 
the 
exchange 
of 
indecent 
photographs, and his inappropriate comments to women 
who appeared in his court either in their professional 
capacities or as parties or witnesses, and the resulting 
extortion attempt by Ms. [T.] based on his indecent 
photographs, is without question conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice that brings the judiciary into 
disrepute. 
8. 
The Supreme Court in In re Edens defined willful 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
misconduct in office as “improper and wrong conduct of a 
judge acting in his official capacity done intentionally, 
knowingly and, generally, in bad faith.  It is more than a 
mere error of judgment or an act of negligence.  While the 
term would encompass conduct involving moral turpitude, 
dishonesty, or corruption, these elements need not 
necessarily be present.”  290 N.C. at 305, 226 S.E.2d at 9.  
The undisputed facts at issue in this matter establish that 
Respondent’s conduct involved moral turpitude and 
dishonesty with the SBI and the Commission during their 
investigations in an effort to prevent the discovery of the 
full extent of his sexual misconduct.  As such, and despite 
Respondent’s recent diagnosis of the early stages of 
frontotemporal dementia on the eve of his disciplinary 
hearing (a fact he noted during his clinical evaluation on 
October 20, 2020), the Commission does not hesitate to 
conclude that Respondent’s conduct between 2017 and 
2019 was willful and renders him unfit to serve as a judge 
of the State of North Carolina and that Respondent fully 
understood that his conduct would justify disciplinary 
action.  By Respondent’s own admission to the SBI on May 
16, 2019, his conduct with respect to Ms. [T.] alone was 
“terrible” and could result in disciplinary action by the 
Commission to include a recommendation of removal from 
office and loss of his pension and that his preference was 
that the Commission would not learn of his misconduct. . . . 
The Commission thus concludes that Respondent also 
engaged in willful misconduct in office. 
(Second alteration in original). 
¶ 7 
 
In addition to these conclusions of law, the Commission also considered the 
fact that respondent “is no longer a sitting judge of the State of North Carolina and 
has agreed that he will never serve in such capacity again,” that he “had served for 
approximately 18 years as a judge, and for over a decade as chief judge of District 
29A, without any disciplinary matters before the Commission,” that he “had 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
contributed to improvements to the administration of justice in his district,” and that 
he is in “the early stages of frontotemporal dementia.”  Based on the conclusions of 
law and these mitigating factors, the Commission recommended that respondent be 
censured.  
¶ 8 
 
In reviewing recommendations from the Commission, the Supreme Court acts 
as a court of original jurisdiction rather than as an appellate court.  In re Daisy, 359 
N.C. 622, 623, 614 S.E.2d 529, 530 (2005).  Because this Court is not bound by the 
Commission’s recommendations, we must independently determine what, if any, 
disciplinary measures to impose on respondent.  In re Stephenson, 354 N.C. 201, 205, 
552 S.E.2d 137, 139 (2001).  “[I]n reviewing the Commission’s recommendations, this 
Court must first determine if the Commission’s findings of fact are adequately 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, and in turn, whether those findings 
support its conclusions of law.”  In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202, 207, 657 S.E.2d 346, 349 
(2008).  An admission of facts in a stipulation is “binding in every sense, preventing 
the party who makes it from introducing evidence to dispute it, and relieving the 
opponent of the necessity of producing evidence to establish the admitted fact.”  State 
v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 686, 178 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1971) (quoting Stansbury, 
North Carolina Evidence § 166 (2d ed. 1963)). 
¶ 9 
 
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Commission’s 
findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and we find that the 
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
Commission’s conclusions of law are supported by those facts.  Therefore, we adopt 
the Commission’s conclusions of law.  Furthermore, we agree with the Commission’s 
conclusion that respondent’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct in office and 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office 
into disrepute.  See In re Hair, 324 N.C. 324, 325, 377 S.E.2d 749, 750 (1989) 
(concluding that censure was appropriate because the respondent’s inappropriate 
sexual advances and comments were prejudicial to the administration of justice).  
¶ 10 
 
In addition, because respondent is no longer a sitting judge and has agreed not 
to serve as such, while taking into account respondent’s eighteen years of 
distinguished service as a judge and respondent’s expression of remorse, we agree 
that censure is appropriate.  See id. at 325, 377 S.E.2d at 750 (concluding censure 
was appropriate where the respondent was a retired judge and had made no 
application to sit as an emergency district court judge); In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 
146, 250 S.E.2d 890, 911 (1978) (stating that jurisdiction for purposes of judicial 
discipline is not lost upon a judge’s resignation). 
¶ 11 
 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina orders that respondent, C. Randy Pool, 
be CENSURED for conduct in violation 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.  
IN RE POOL 
2021-NCSC-61 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 By order of the Court in Conference, this the 11th day of June 2021.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Berger, J. 
For the Court 
 
 
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 
the 11th day of June 2021.  
 
s/Amy L. Funderburk     
AMY L. FUNDERBURK 
Clerk of the Supreme Court 
 
Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.