A three-member panel of the state’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission ruled Friday that former Judge Bill Belk, 64, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys because he was untruthful when interviewed four years ago about his outside activities while he was a District Court judge in Mecklenburg County.

Friday’s hearing stemmed from a complaint by the North Carolina State Bar, the state agency that regulates attorneys. It was held at the bar’s headquarters in Raleigh.

The panel first listened to arguments from State Bar attorney Margaret Cloutier and then from Belk, who represented himself. The panel members then went behind closed doors and reached a decision in about an hour.

The panel will meet again Sept. 26 to decide what discipline it will impose. Possible actions against Belk include issuing an admonishment, a reprimand, or censure; suspending his law license; or disbarring him permanently. 



In 2010, Belk received a lifetime ban from serving as a judge by the N.C. Supreme Court as a result of a complaint by the Judicial Standards Commission, the state agency that considers allegations of misconduct against judges.

After Friday’s hearing, Belk discussed the outcome with Carolina Journal. “I didn’t lie on anything. There was no deceit or lying. This had nothing to do about being a judge or a lawyer,” he said.

The issue central to Friday’s hearing (and his lifetime ban from the judiciary) is his continued service on the board of directors of Sonic Automotive Inc., while he was a judge. The current bar complaint alleged that Belk was being untruthful and misleading when he answered questions about health insurance coverage during a February 2009 interview with a Judicial Standards Commission investigator.

Belk told CJ he has been singled out unfairly and that the disciplinary systems for judges and lawyers in North Carolina need to be reformed. He blames his troubles on a broken system and specifically on Paul Ross, executive director of the state’s Judicial Standards Commission, who initiated the first complaint against Belk in 2009.

Ongoing discipline

It was the third time in four years that Belk has faced discipline by a state agency monitoring members of the legal profession, even though none of the complaints involve actions he took as a judge or an attorney. (See related story here.)

In August 2012, the state bar’s Grievance Committee issued a reprimand to Belk based on an August 2010 judgment resulting from a civil action filed by his former wife. A Superior Court judge ruled that Belk had mismanaged some of the funds in a custodial account that he set up for their daughter.

Sonic is one of the nation’s largest auto retailers, and Belk had been on the board since 1998. The N.C. Code of Judicial Conduct contains a provision that states a judge “should not serve as an officer, director, or manager of any business.” Belk maintains that the provision does not prevent judges from having such corporate ties; otherwise, the language would be “shall,” rather than “should.” He also noted that South Carolina allows judges to serve on boards so long as that participation does not conflict with the judge’s judicial duties or create the appearance of a conflict.

The state bar complaint alleges that in December 2008, Belk told Ross that Sonic was a source of Belk’s health insurance and he wanted to remain on the Sonic board because he had medical issues. The complaint also alleges he told the same information to a commission investigator during an interview in February 2009.

“Defendant engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d),” stated the complaint.

Belk told CJ he did not lie to Ross or the investigator. In responses to commission and bar complaints, he said he wanted to remain on the board because he would be likely to get health insurance from Sonic if he served no more than one four-year term on the court. “While [I was] a judge I was receiving health insurance from the state and they should have known that,” he said.

The Disciplinary Hearing Commission is an independent tribunal that considers all contested disciplinary cases against attorneys. The commission is composed of lawyers appointed by the state bar and non-lawyers appointed by the governor and the General Assembly. Each hearing panel has two lawyers and one non-lawyer.

The Charlotte Observer reported that Sonic, founded by NASCAR promoter Bruton Smith, did not offer medical insurance to board members, but Belk told CJ he believed there was a possibility he could pursue health insurance through Sonic if he had no other health coverage. He had made a similar arrangement when he served on the board of directors of Monroe Hardware. Besides, Belk said, the state bar was more interested in forcing him to resign from the Sonic board rather than settling any uncertainty over what he had said about any medical benefits associated with Sonic.

Belk’s panel was composed of New Bern attorney Joshua Willey, Jr., Fayetteville attorney Renny Deese, and Karen Ray, a former legislator from Mooresville appointed to the commission by House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg.

In 1973, the General Assembly established the Judicial Standards Commission as the state agency to consider complaints of misconduct against judges. After an investigation, the commission may recommend to the N.C. Supreme Court that a judge should be disciplined. The Supreme Court then reviews the case and dismisses it or establishes disciplinary action ranging from a public reprimand to removal from office.


The commission is made up of 13 members, five of them judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The commission’s chairman must be a member of the N.C. Court of Appeals. The State Bar Council appoints four attorneys, and the governor and general assembly appoint four citizen members.

Don Carrington is executive editor of Carolina Journal.