Title: In re Brooks

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-36 
No. 480A20 
Filed 16 April 2021 
IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 19-225 
 
WILLIAM F. BROOKS, 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 27 October 2020 
that respondent William F. Brooks, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District 
Court Division, Judicial District Twenty-Three, be censured for conduct in violation 
of Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C; and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice and for willful misconduct in office in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.  Heard 
in the Supreme Court on 17 February 2021 without oral argument pursuant to Rule 
30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
 
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 -
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 (2020) (citing In re Badgett, 362 
N.C. 202, 207 (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 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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: 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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.”   
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 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 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 Economic Interest (SEI) with the State Ethics 
Commission by April 15 of each year.  See N.C.G.S. §138A-
3(21), § 138A-22.  In executing his SEI “No Change Form” 
on March 31, 2017 under penalty of perjury, Respondent 
affirmatively represented that he had no changes in income 
to report for 2016, 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 1 misdemeanor.  At the time Respondent made those 
representations, he knew he had earned nearly $90,000 in 
additional income in 2016.  By failing to disclose his outside 
income on the SEI as required by state law, Respondent 
failed to “respect and comply with the law” and further 
failed to conduct himself “in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity . . . of the judiciary” and 
therefore violated Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
Conduct. 
4. 
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.”  The Commission concludes that Respondent 
violated Canon 1 because he failed to observe appropriate 
standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the 
judiciary when he failed to disclose his significant outside 
income in 2016 on both his Canon 6 Form and SEI when he 
knew that such reporting was required under the Code of 
Judicial Conduct and state law, respectively. 
5. 
The Preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct 
provides that a “violation of this Code of Judicial Conduct 
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. 
6. 
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 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
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 impermissibly serving as an executor 
for the Crawford estates, collecting nearly $90,000 in fees 
for such service and then affirmatively representing on his 
Canon 6 Report that he had no outside income to report, as 
well as his action in affirmatively filing a “No Change 
Form” with the State Ethics Commission that concealed 
his income, constitutes conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into 
disrepute.  Such conduct could reasonably be perceived as 
an attempt to hide from public scrutiny the significant 
income he received from engaging in an activity expressly 
prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
7. 
The Supreme Court in In re Edens defined willful 
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, those elements need not 
necessarily be present.”  290 N.C. at 305, 226 S.E.2d at 9.  
As further set forth by the Supreme Court in In re Nowell, 
293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246 (1977), a judge’s “specific 
intent to use the powers of the judicial office to accomplish 
a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was 
beyond the legitimate exercise of his authority constitutes 
bad faith.”  293 N.C. at 248, 237 S.E.2d at 255 (internal 
citations omitted).  The undisputed facts at issue in this 
matter establish that Respondent’s conduct was the result 
of more than a mere error of judgment or act of negligence.  
Even assuming Respondent did not act in bad faith in 
violating Canon 5D (notwithstanding his admission that he 
received a copy of the Code of Judicial Conduct and 
attended training on it as a new judge), Respondent 
without question knew that as a judge of the General Court 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
of Justice, the duties of his judicial office required him to 
file annual reports that would disclose for public scrutiny 
his sources of outside income.  Despite earning nearly 
$90,000 in extra income in 2016, Respondent in his 
capacity as a judicial officer affirmatively and knowingly 
represented in public financial disclosure that he had no 
new reportable income.  Such conduct amounts to willful 
misconduct in office. 
As mitigating factors, the Commission found that respondent cooperated, admitted 
error and showed remorse.  Additionally, as the Commission found, the conduct at 
issue here appears to be a single event and not a pattern of recurring misconduct.  
Subsequent to the Statement of Charges, Respondent amended the public reports at 
issue to reflect his outside income for 2016.  The Commission found as aggravating 
factors the fact that the amount of outside income was large, making his failure to 
disclose it particularly egregious, and the fact that the income came from activity 
expressly prohibited in Canon 5D of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  In light of the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and taking into account the mitigating and 
aggravating factors, the Commission recommended that respondent be censured. 
¶ 7 
 
In this matter, we proceed as a court of original jurisdiction rather than an 
appellate court.  In re Clontz, 376 N.C. 128, 140 (2020) (citing In re Hill, 357 N.C. 559, 
564 (2003)).  We are not bound by the Commission’s recommendations, but rather 
must exercise our own independent judgment when considering the evidence.  Id. 
(citing In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 244 (1977)).  Here, the Commission’s findings were 
based on stipulated facts and exhibits, and they are uncontested.  After reviewing the 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
full record, we conclude that the Commission’s findings of fact are supported by clear 
and convincing evidence, and we adopt them as our own without exception. 
¶ 8 
 
We also adopt the Commission’s conclusions of law as appropriately supported 
by those facts.  Both the prohibition on serving as a personal representative for the 
estate of a non-family member and the reporting requirements for extra-judicial 
income are explicit in the relevant governing authorities and respondent’s failure to 
abide by them constitutes “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
brings the judicial office into disrepute.” N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b). 
¶ 9 
 
Where we depart from the Commission is in the determination of an 
appropriate resolution.  We agree with the Commission that a public reprimand is 
not appropriate because the misconduct in this matter is not “minor.”  See N.C.G.S. § 
7A-374.2(7) (public reprimand appropriate where misconduct is minor).  And we 
appreciate the mitigating factors that exist here, particularly concerning defendant’s 
cooperation with the Commission and his near-immediate acknowledgment of the 
impropriety of his conduct.   
¶ 10 
 
Nevertheless, we must view this matter keeping in mind that the central 
purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as articulated in the Preamble, is to uphold 
an “independent and honorable judiciary” for the people of North Carolina.  In In re 
Mack¸ 369 N.C. 236 (2016), where the respondent judge was publicly reprimanded for 
failing to report non-judicial income, the activity the judge engaged in, namely 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
renting residential property, was not an activity that itself is prohibited conduct.  
Judges are permitted under the Code of Judicial Conduct to own and realize a profit 
from rents, so long as the income is properly disclosed.  Here, the Code of Judicial 
Conduct explicitly prohibits the activity that produced the non-reported income.  
Further, the estates were settled in respondent’s own judicial district with 
respondent seeking and receiving a significant commission for serving as executor.  
This is an additional aggravating factor that created the appearance of a lack of 
judicial independence.  Cf. In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202, 209 (2008) (imposing a sixty-
day suspension where some of the conduct occurred in the courtroom “which gave rise 
to the unavoidable inference that [the judge] sought to use the powers of his position 
to obtain a personal favor which was beyond the legitimate exercise of his 
authority.”).  Respondent’s conduct here was a willful violation that was prejudicial 
to the administration of justice and brought the judicial office into disrepute. 
¶ 11 
 
In In re Chapman, 371 N.C. 486 (2018), this Court imposed a thirty-day 
suspension even though the conduct in question did not result in a financial gain for 
the judge, and where the judge cooperated with the Commission, entered into a 
stipulation of facts, took responsibility for his actions, and expressed remorse.  Id., 
371 N.C. at 496.  Nevertheless, by unreasonably delaying for five years his ruling on 
a motion for permanent child support, the judge in that case committed egregious 
misconduct requiring more than a censure.   
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 12 
 
Similarly, in In re Badgett, this Court went beyond the Commission’s 
recommendation of censure to impose a suspension because the judge’s misconduct 
was “of a significantly greater magnitude than that present in other recent cases 
where we have held censure to be appropriate.”  362 N.C. at 208; see also In re Hill, 
357 N.C. 559 (2003) (censuring judge for verbally abusing an attorney and for sexual 
comments and horseplay); In re Brown, 356 N.C. 278 (2002) (censuring judge when 
on two occasions, the judge caused his signature to be stamped on orders for which 
he did not ascertain the contents and effect); In re Stephenson, 354 N.C. 201 (2001) 
(censure imposed when the judge solicited votes for his reelection from the bench); In 
re Brown, 351 N.C. 601 (2000) (censure appropriate when the judge consistently 
issued improper verdicts).  
¶ 13 
 
In the circumstances of this case it is our judgment that, after weighing the 
severity of defendant’s conduct with his candor, cooperation, remorse, and otherwise 
good character, a one-month suspension is appropriate. At the conclusion of the 
suspension, respondent may resume the duties of his office. 
¶ 14 
 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina orders that respondent William F. 
Brooks be, and is hereby, SUSPENDED without compensation  from office as a Judge 
of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial District Twenty-
Three, for THIRTY DAYS from the entry of this order for conduct in violation of 
Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for 
IN RE BROOKS 
2021-NCSC-36 
Order of the Court 
 
 
 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into 
disrepute and willful misconduct in office in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376. 
 
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 16th day of April 2021. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Berger, J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Court 
 
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 
this the 16th day of April 2021. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AMY L. FUNDERBURK 
Clerk of the Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Amy L. Funderburk