House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.
Removal proceedings. Some background is in order before addressing the changes S.L. 2025-54 makes to the proceedings for the suspension or removal from office of a clerk of superior court.
In re Chastain. Last December, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Chastain, 386 N.C. 678 (2024) (Chastain III), reversing an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals and, in the process, finding the standard for removal for a clerk of superior court in the then-existing version of G.S. 7A-105 at odds with the constitutional standard. Chastain III was the culmination of years of litigation around whether the actions of Patricia Chastain, the former clerk of superior court in Franklin County, warranted her removal from office. At the time of the removal proceedings in that case (which began in 2020), G.S. 7A-105 provided that a clerk of superior court could be suspended or removed from office for willful misconduct or mental or physical incapacity under the same general procedures that governed the suspension or removal of a district attorney. G.S. 7A-105 went on to require that a removal hearing “be conducted by the senior regular resident superior court judge serving the county of the clerk’s residence.” Unlike the statute governing removal of a district attorney (G.S. 7A-66), former G.S. 7A-105 made no provision for the referral of such a matter to another superior court judge.
In the Chastain matter, the senior resident superior court judge for Franklin County recused, and an out-of-district superior court judge was commissioned to hear the case. That judge found that the clerk’s actions (both those alleged in the sworn affidavit that commenced the proceedings and others established during the evidentiary hearing) constituted willful misconduct; thus, he ordered Chastain permanently removed from office. She appealed.
The Court of Appeals held in In re Chastain, 281 N.C. App. 520 (2022) (Chastain I), that only the senior resident superior court judge in the county where the clerk presides is authorized to remove a clerk for misconduct under Article IV, Section 17 of the North Carolina Constitution—the authority underpinning G.S. 7A-305. The court also held that the trial judge erred by relying on acts that were not alleged in the sworn affidavit to establish misconduct. Finally, the court held that though the presiding judge was not authorized to act under Article IV, Section 17 the judge could remove the clerk under Article VI, Section 8, which renders a person adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office disqualified to hold office. The court remanded the case to the trial judge for consideration of whether the acts rose to the level of corruption or malpractice in office.
On remand, the trial court entered a new removal order concluding that the clerk’s conduct did in fact amount to corruption or malpractice. Chastain appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed in a divided opinion. See In re Chastain, 289 N.C. App. 271 (2023) (Chastain II). The state supreme court then granted discretionary review.
The supreme court disagreed with the court of appeals’ holding in Chastain I that the only individual with authority under Article IV to remove Ms. Chastain was Franklin County’s senior regular resident superior court judge. While the state constitution designates the senior regular resident superior court judge as the judicial officer with the authority to preside over a removal proceeding when charges are brought against a clerk, the court reasoned that when the senior resident superior court judge has a conflict of interest and cannot fairly conduct that proceeding, the judicial branch may designate another superior court judge – as all such judges have equal judicial jurisdiction, power, authority, and status – to wield this judicial power. Thus, the court concluded that the out-of-district commissioned judge had constitutional authority under Article IV to preside over the removal hearing.
The supreme court agreed with the court of appeals’ conclusion in Chastain I and II that a clerk may only be removed based on allegations set forth in the affidavit initiating the proceeding. Finally, the court stated that neither opinion below had applied the proper standard for removal under Article IV. The court held that standard to be misconduct—as stated in the Constitution—rather than the willful misconduct standard set forth in G.S. 7A-105. The court went on to define misconduct for a clerk as “wrongful, unlawful, dishonest, or improper conduct performed under the color of authority for the clerk of superior court as identified in N.C.G.S. § 7A-103,” and remanded the case for the trial judge’s consideration of whether removal is proper based upon that standard.
Amended G.S. 7A-105. Section 13 of S.L. 2025-54 amends G.S. 7A-105 in two significant respects. First, it alters the standard for suspension or removal to misconduct, eliminating the willful modifier. (Mental or physical incapacity remains a ground for suspension or removal.) Second, it sets out detailed procedures for removal proceedings for clerks, eliminating the cross-reference to removal proceedings for district attorneys. The amendments are effective for proceedings based on clerk conduct occurring on or after July 2, 2025.
The pleadings. A proceeding to suspend or remove a clerk of superior court commences with the filing of a sworn affidavit with the chief district court judge in the district comprising the county where the clerk resides. The affidavit must be filed in paper form (not electronically) and must charge one or more grounds for removal. It must contain a certificate of service showing that it was served on the respondent clerk in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The affidavit is subject to the requirements of Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the signing of a pleading constitutes a certification that the pleading is well grounded in fact and warranted by law and is not interposed for an improper purpose, and provides for sanctions for a pleading signed in violation of the rule.
Filing fees. The clerk must collect superior court costs in connection with the filing of the affidavit unless the proceeding is filed by an elected or appointed official of the North Carolina Judicial Branch. If the required court costs are not paid within 30 days of the filing of the affidavit, the chief district court judge must forward the matter to the senior resident superior court judge who must dismiss the proceeding without prejudice. Once court costs are paid, the chief district court judge must notify the senior resident superior court judge.
Probable cause review. Within 10 days, the senior resident superior court judge must review the sworn affidavit and determine (a) whether the charges constitute grounds for removal, and (b) whether there is probable cause for believing the charges are true. If the affidavit fails to state grounds for removal or the charges are not supported by probable cause, the judge must dismiss the proceeding.
Written order establishing probable cause. If the judge does not dismiss the charges following this preliminary review, he or she must enter a written order making findings of fact and conclusions of law on which charges are grounds for removal and the probable cause for believing those charges are true. The proceedings are confidential unless and until the judge enters such a written order.
Suspension of the clerk. If the judge finds facts based on the affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the public or the administration of justice if the clerk remains in office until a final determination on the merits, the judge also may enter an order suspending the clerk from performing the duties of the office until final determination of the charges. The salary of the clerk continues during any such suspension.
Service of the order(s). Any order of dismissal, order establishing probable cause, or order of suspension must be served on the parties pursuant to Rule 5 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure as soon as practicable after entry of the order.
Hearing on the merits. If the proceeding is not dismissed, the judge must set the matter for hearing no earlier than 30 and no later than 60 days after service of the probable cause order. The hearing, which may be continued for good cause, must be recorded and open to the public.
If criminal charges are filed against the clerk that relate to the charges in the removal proceeding and the judge finds probable cause for removal, the judge may stay the removal proceeding until the criminal case is resolved.
The North Carolina Rules of Evidence apply to the hearing as do the following Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 5, Rule 11, Rule 45, Rule 46, and Rule 52. At least five days before the hearing, the parties must exchange all evidence they intend to offer along with a list of witnesses.
In the hearing, the judge must hear evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law based on clear and convincing evidence. If the judge concludes that grounds for removal exist, he or she must enter a written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law permanently removing the clerk from office and terminating the clerk’s salary. If the judge does not find grounds for removal supported by clear and convincing evidence, any pending suspension of the clerk immediately ends, and the judge must enter an order dismissing the proceeding.
Appeal. The clerk may appeal an order of removal to the court of appeals on the basis of legal error. While the appeal is pending, the clerk may not perform any of the duties of the office. If the clerk is subsequently reinstated, the clerk’s salary must be restored from the original date of removal.
Acting clerk. If the clerk is suspended or appeals an order of removal, the presiding judge must appoint a qualified person to act as clerk until final resolution of the proceedings.
Jurisdiction of superior court judges. Section 7 of S.L. 2025-54 enacts new G.S. 7A-47.4, which provides that when the Chief Justice assigns a resident superior court judge, special superior court judge, or emergency superior court judge to preside over a specific case, that judge has the same power and authority over the assigned case as that of a regular judge over matters arising in the regular judge’s district or set of districts. This change permits a judge assigned to preside over a case designated as an exceptional civil case or complex business case (pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts) to take action in the assigned case even when the designated judge is presently assigned to another district, without the judge needing to obtain a special commission from the Chief Justice. The change was effective July 2, 2025.
Rule 63. Speaking of judicial authority, Section 19 of S.L. 2025-54 amends Rule 63 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the circumstances in which a substitute judge may perform the duties of a judge who presided over a civil trial or hearing. The amendment clarifies that, in superior court, the judge who may substitute for another is the senior resident superior court judge. The statute formerly referred to the “judge senior in point of continuous service on the superior court regularly holding the courts of the district.” Amended Rule 63 conforms with a 2024 change in the designation of senior resident status. S.L. 2024-57 amended G.S. 7A-41.4 to provide that the senior resident superior court judge is designated by the Chief Justice rather than being so designated based upon his or her length of service. The change to Rule 63 became effective July 2, 2025.
Age limits for service as judge. Section 12.5 of S.L. 2025-54 amends G.S. 7A-40.1. and 7A-140.1 to modify the mandatory retirement age for superior and district court judges, effective July 2, 2025 for judicial retirements on or after that date. Before the change, a superior or district court judge was not permitted to continue in office beyond the last day of the month in which the judge attained 72 years of age. That deadline is now extended to the last day of the calendar year in which the judge attains 72 years of age.
Recovery courts. Section 2 of S.L. 2025-54 amends provisions of Article 62 of Chapter 7A to require that all local judicially managed accountability and recovery court programs, regardless of how they are funded, be operated consistently with guidelines adopted pursuant to G.S. 7A-795. These amendments were effective August 1, 2025.
Audio recordings by court reporters. Section 12.3 of S.L. 2025-54 amends G.S. 7A-95, which governs the reporting of trials in superior court. Amended G.S. 7A-95(c) provides that audio recordings created by court reporters are not public records as defined by G.S. 132-1 and may be disclosed only as allowed by court order for good cause shown and after notice to the parties. Stenomask audio files and audio files of digital recording technicians are excluded from this designation and remain public records. These changes were effective July 2, 2025.
Section 11 of S.L. 2025-70 (S 429) made a related change to G.S. 15A-1241(b), requiring in criminal trials in superior court that the court reporter record arguments of counsel on questions of law when requested by any party or the judge. That change was effective for trial proceedings commenced on or after July 9, 2025.
Juror education and training. Section 12.2 of S.L. 2025-54 adds new G.S. 9-33, which requires the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to prescribe rules governing any training or educational materials provided to grand jurors or petit (trial) jurors in criminal or civil cases. It prohibits a court from providing jurors with training or educational materials not otherwise allowed under AOC rules. These changes are effective December 1, 2025, and apply to training or educational material provided on or after that date.
Appointment of magistrates. Section 16 of S.L. 2025-54 amends G.S. 7A-171, effective June 2, 2025, to eliminate the AOC’s authority to authorize the appointment of magistrates in a particular county above the minimum number of magistrates for each county established by the General Assembly.