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. §138A3(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 sixtyday 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 TwentyThree, 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