{
  "id": 2491051,
  "name": "THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. CLYDE C. RANDOLPH, JR., Attorney",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina State Bar v. Randolph",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 153PA89",
  "first_page": "699",
  "last_page": "702",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "325 N.C. 699"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "254 S.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "statutory power in State Bar and inherent power in court \"co-equal and co-extensive''"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571176
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "statutory power in State Bar and inherent power in court \"co-equal and co-extensive''"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.E.2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "299"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550498
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "109"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/39/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 S.E.2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4687106,
        4679144,
        4680297,
        4683658,
        4686580
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0405-04",
        "/nc/311/0405-02",
        "/nc/311/0405-01",
        "/nc/311/0405-03",
        "/nc/311/0405-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 S.E.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "387"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 782",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525844
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "785"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0782-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E.2d 837",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565795,
        8565766,
        8565736,
        8565816,
        8565850
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0426-03",
        "/nc/282/0426-02",
        "/nc/282/0426-01",
        "/nc/282/0426-04",
        "/nc/282/0426-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E.2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "35",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550199
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "275",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0272-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 Okla. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Okla.",
      "case_ids": [
        1622207
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/okla/193/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 So.2d 186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9859733
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/132/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ark. 936",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1688422
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/234/0936-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 S.E.2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "388"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554038
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "397"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 S.E.2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "654"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552412
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "770"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E.2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "35"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 719",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574498
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "722"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0719-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 5954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3607543730758715e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7942681214232953
    },
    "sha256": "75db656d817571e4261b7a61235c64acd2c28bfef1d914c99f72bda9e2bbf8e7",
    "simhash": "1:c199b76e540e5262",
    "word_count": 980
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:09.974518+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. CLYDE C. RANDOLPH, JR., Attorney"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPlaintiff is an agency of the State of North Carolina with statutory power over the discipline of attorneys. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 84-15, -23 (1985). Defendant is a duly licensed attorney who practices in Forsyth County, North Carolina. While serving as attorney for an estate, defendant paid himself, from the estate, an attorney\u2019s fee of $98,000 for his services in settling an insurance claim on behalf of the estate. The administratrix filed a civil action against defendant, alleging that the fee was unauthorized and excessive. She also filed a grievance with plaintiff, alleging that defendant had violated plaintiff\u2019s Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rules of Professional Conduct of The North Carolina State Bar (1989). Both the trial court and the plaintiff exonerated defendant of any wrongdoing in the handling of the estate and payment of the fee.\nThis appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court purporting to dismiss the grievance proceeding filed with plaintiff. Plaintiff moved pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60 for a modification of the judgment to delete those portions naming plaintiff as a party and dismissing the grievance. The trial court denied the motion, and plaintiff appealed. On 8 June 1989 we allowed plaintiff\u2019s petition for discretionary review prior to a determination by the Court of Appeals. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31(b) (1986). We now reverse.\nDefendant argues that because both the trial court and the plaintiff have exonerated him of any wrongdoing, no controversy exists, and this Court should not hear the appeal. \u201c[A]s a general rule[,] this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist.\u201d Kendrick v. Cain, 272 N.C. 719, 722, 159 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1968). Even if moot, however, this Court may, if it chooses, consider a question that involves a matter of public interest, is of general importance, and deserves prompt resolution. Matthews v. Dept. of Transportation, 35 N.C. App. 768, 770, 242 S.E.2d 653, 654 (1978); Leak v. High Point City Council, 25 N.C. App. 394, 397, 213 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1975); see also Netherton v. Davis, 234 Ark. 936, 355 S.W.2d 609 (1962); Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1961); Payne v. Jones, 193 Okla. 609, 146 P.2d 113 (1944); 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error \u00a7 1354(1) (1958). We conclude that a jurisdictional dispute between the superior court and the North Carolina State Bar presents such a question.\nThe North Carolina General Assembly has vested plaintiff with control of the discipline of attorneys practicing law in this state. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 84-23 (1985). It has provided, however, that this empowerment does not disable or abridge \u201cthe inherent power of the court to deal with its attorneys.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 84-36 (1985). Thus, plaintiff and the trial courts of this state share concurrent jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline. Our Court of Appeals has stated correctly:\nIt is true that . . . questions relating to the propriety and ethics of an attorney are ordinarily for the consideration of the North Carolina State Bar. . . . G.S. 84-36 specifically provides, however, that the provisions of [N.C.G.S. ch. 84] are not to be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of a court to deal with its attorneys. Furthermore, it has been held repeatedly that in North Carolina there are two methods by which disciplinary action or disbarment may be imposed upon attorneys \u2014 statutory and judicial.\nIn re Bonding Co., 16 N.C. App. 272, 275, 192 S.E.2d 33, 35, cert, denied and appeal dismissed, 282 N.C. 426, 192 S.E.2d 837 (1972) (citations omitted). See also State v. Malone, 65 N.C. App. 782, 785, 310 S.E.2d 385, 387, disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 311 N.C. 405, 319 S.E.2d 277 (1984); Swenson v. Thibaut, 39 N.C. App. 77, 109, 250 S.E.2d 279, 299 (1978), disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 296 N.C. 740, 254 S.E.2d 181 (1979) (statutory power in State Bar and inherent power in court \u201cco-equal and co-extensive\u2019\u2019).\nThe trial court thus erred in naming plaintiff as a party and dismissing the grievance proceeding against defendant, and in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to delete those portions of the judgment. Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to modify the judgment entered on 3 May 1988, nunc pro tunc 22 April 1988, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court, Forsyth County, for entry of an order allowing the motion.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. E. James and Carolin D. Bakewell for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Nichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans and Murrelle, by William D. Caffrey, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. CLYDE C. RANDOLPH, JR., Attorney\nNo. 153PA89\n(Filed 7 December 1989)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 9 (NCX3d)\u2014 moot questions \u2014 discretion of Supreme Court to consider\nThe Supreme Court may, if it chooses, consider a moot question that involves a matter of public interest, is of general importance, and deserves prompt resolution. A jurisdictional dispute between the superior court and the North Carolina State Bar presents such a question.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7 768.\n2. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 10 (NCI3d)\u2014 attorney grievance filed with State Bar \u2014 no authority by superior court to dismiss\nThe North Carolina State Bar and the trial courts of this state share concurrent jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline. A superior court judge thus erred in entering a judgment naming the State Bar as a party and purporting to dismiss a grievance proceeding filed with the State Bar against defendant attorney.\nAm Jur 2d, Attorneys at Law \u00a7\u00a7 28, 29.\nON discretionary review prior to a determination by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31(b), of an order by Rousseau, J., filed on 17 March 1989 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Calendared for argument in the Supreme Court 15 November 1989; determined on the briefs without oral argument pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 30(d).\nB. E. James and Carolin D. Bakewell for plaintiff-appellant.\nNichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans and Murrelle, by William D. Caffrey, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0699-01",
  "first_page_order": 725,
  "last_page_order": 728
}