{
  "id": 2486445,
  "name": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 117 LACY S. HAIR, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 117 Lacy S. Hair",
  "decision_date": "1989-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 504A88",
  "first_page": "324",
  "last_page": "326",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 N.C. 324"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 3617,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.797,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39272868804320255
    },
    "sha256": "69cd0d26699afd74d44ea9f95cc579fc533ce0a3d4c83ef10ff830618277f6d2",
    "simhash": "1:4aae92fd8f896258",
    "word_count": 569
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:53.264050+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Whichard, J."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 117 LACY S. HAIR, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER OF CENSURE.\nThe conduct of the respondent in this proceeding, which formed the basis of the Commission\u2019s recommendation that he be censured, involved: (1) attempting an assignation with a woman, convicted of prostitution and on probation, and giving the impression that he could assist her with her legal problems; (2) changing verdicts in motor vehicle violation cases upon ex parte communications from defendants without providing the state an opportunity to be heard; (3) making an inappropriate advance toward a woman detective employed by the Fayetteville Police Department; (4) making improper and potentially embarrassing and humiliating remarks to the victim in a criminal proceeding before the court and the victim\u2019s girlfriend; and (5) making what could be construed as implied threats to attorneys who were representing clients in cases heard by the respondent or pending before his court.\nRespondent in his answer to the complaint against him \u201cacknowledges that his conduct . . . could be interpreted as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, thus bringing the judicial office into disrepute.\u201d Respondent also waived formal hearing before the Commission and agreed \u201cto accept and abide by any rulings and sanctions imposed by the Commission.\u201d Respondent retired effective 1 November 1988 and has made no application to sit as an emergency district court judge.\nThe Court concludes that respondent\u2019s conduct does amount to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-376. The Court approves the recommendation of the Commission that respondent be censured.\nNow, therefore, it is, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 7A-376, -377 and Rule 3 of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission, ordered that Judge Lacy S. Hair, retired, be, and he is hereby, censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.\nDone by the Court in Conference this the 5th day of April 1989.\nWhichard, J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 117 LACY S. HAIR, Respondent\nNo. 504A88\n(Filed 5 April 1989)\nJudges \u00a7 7\u2014 censure of judge for misconduct\nA district court judge, now retired, is censured by the Supreme Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute on the basis of the following actions: (a) attempting an assignation with a woman, convicted of prostitution and on probation, and giving the impression that he could assist her with her legal problems; (2) changing verdicts in motor vehicle violation cases upon ex parte communications from defendants without providing the State an opportunity to be heard; (3) making an inappropriate advance toward a woman detective; (4) making improper remarks to a victim in a criminal proceeding; and (5) making implied threats to attorneys who were representing clients in cases heard by respondent or pending before his court.\nThis matter is before the Court upon a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission (Commission), filed with the Court on 31 October 1988, that Judge Lacy S. Hair, now retired, formerly a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Twelfth Judicial District of the State of North Carolina, be censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Canons 2A, 2B, 3A(2), 3A(3), and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.\nNo counsel for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0324-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 364
}