The January 23 hearing fundamentally shaped everything that followed in my case and the amount of misconduct is too long to list. What should have been a day of progress instead became a shocking demonstration of procedural irregularities. The hearing was scheduled before Chief District Court Judge Eagles, who had sole authority to rule on my Motion for Designation of Exceptional Case. I had patiently waited a month for this critical hearing that could move my case to exceptional status. While Judge Eagles couldn’t grant the motion herself—she needed to send a recommendation to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—her presence was legally required. Yet on the hearing day, she was inexplicably absent, and I received no notification of any judge change violating multiple canons of North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Baker appeared instead, despite having no authority to rule on this particular motion. Compounding this irregularity, opposing counsel made an impromptu oral request for continuance on both motions without prior notification. According to Rule 6(d) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, written motions and notice of hearing “shall be served not later than five days before the time specified for the hearing.” He claimed she had “secured” new counsel just days earlier on January 17, 2025.
Opposing counsel’s request for a continuance, based on his assertion that he was not the appropriate counsel to handle further proceedings, is not a justifiable basis for delay. He had represented the defendant in District Court for over four months, after voluntarily accepting representation at the civil court level. If he believed he lacked the competence to handle the case, he violated Rule 1.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to associate competent counsel at the outset. Under Rule 40(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, continuances are only granted for good cause shown, and strategic substitution of counsel after months of litigation is not good cause. Granting a continuance under these circumstances unfairly prejudices me and violates my right to timely justice under the Constitution.
Judge Baker claimed he needed time to review the case before he made his decision, but spent merely thirty seconds—not an exaggeration—before making his ruling. He failed to examine my motion for default judgment or consider the multiple documented violations already filed. This cursory “review” raises serious questions about whether administrative influence pushed him to delay the proceedings.
These concerns are further justified by the fact that Judge Baker attempted to continue the Motion for Default Judgment past the scheduled trial date. The trial court administrator had to intervene, informing him of this and suggesting a date of February 13. This new date was only one day before the deadline the defendants had requested for an extension to file their answer, effectively granting them the extension without a required ruling.
When I immediately objected on record, Judge Baker disregarded my objection and granted the continuance anyway, violating Rule 55(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that require a motion to set aside default judgement – not continue it. When I attempted to speak and request reconsideration, Judge Baker cut me off, stating that if I was trying to change his mind, I wasn’t permitted to speak—a direct infringement of my right to be heard.
The procedural reality is that opposing counsel wasn’t permitted to file a motion to continue regarding default judgment—if such maneuvers were procedurally acceptable, every defendant would employ them to evade default. Whether through intention or negligence, Judge Baker’s refusal to properly review the case placed me in my current position. If he genuinely needed more time, he should have stated so and rescheduled promptly rather than making a consequential ruling after just thirty seconds of consideration.
Lastly, Judge Baker denied my request for proof that new counsel had been secured. This request should have been granted, as parties are required to notify the court when new counsel steps in. Because the defendants are business entities that are legally required to be represented by licensed counsel, opposing counsel’s motion to withdraw—without confirming that substitute counsel had appeared—resulted in a violation of law. Under Rule 1.16(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must comply with all laws requiring notice to the court before terminating representation. Filing a motion that fails to establish continuous legal representation for a business party leaves that party illegally unrepresented and violates both ethical and procedural requirements.
Instead, Judge Baker stated, “Well, what I will do is, I’m going to indicate on the motion that this was continued for the purpose of securing counsel. And obviously, the next judge, even if it’s me, would have discretion to deny any continuance if they have not taken the necessary steps and are causing unnecessary needless delay, all right?”
However, in his order, he wrote: “Defendant’s attorney Frank McGraw appeared on behalf of Defendant and expressed intent to withdraw and stated that Defendant is retaining new counsel.” Stating “is retaining” misrepresents the record, as Frank had stated that new counsel had already been secured on January 17. The order should have accurately reflected that fact to hold him accountable. Without stating the facts, I would have been forced to pull the hearing transcripts to hold him accountable if he continued to misrepresent the court record, which he ultimately did.
The first problematic order from the January 23 hearing ultimately became part of the basis for my interlocutory appeal. Although I could have filed immediately, I have a duty to show that I exhausted all efforts to resolve the issues before taking more extreme measures.
N.C. Gen. R. Prac. 16. Withdrawal of Appearance
No attorney who has entered an appearance in any civil action shall withdraw his appearance, or have it stricken from the record, except on order of the court. Once a client has employed an attorney who has entered a formal appearance, the attorney may not withdraw or abandon the case without (1) justifiable cause, (2) reasonable notice to the client, and (3) the permission of the court. (See Smith vs. Bryant, 264 N.C. 208. See also Rule 43 of Rules of the N.C. State Bar, Volume 4A of General Statutes of North Carolina, page 278, entitled “Withdrawal from employment as attorney or counsel.”)
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 40. Assignment of cases for trial; continuances.
(b) No continuance shall be granted except upon application to the court. A continuance may be granted only for good cause shown and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require. Good cause for granting a continuance shall include those instances when a party to the proceeding, a witness, or counsel of record has an obligation of service to the State of North Carolina. A continuance requested to fulfill an obligation of service by carrying out any duties as a member of the General Assembly, or service on the Rules Review Commission or any other board, commission, or authority as an appointee of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, or the General Assembly, must be granted.
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 55. Default.
(d) Setting aside default. – For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default, and, if a judgment by default has been entered, the judge may set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).
Wake County Local Rule 8.1. Continuances; Generally.
Any motion to continue shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior Court. The motion, along with three copies of the proposed order, shall be delivered to the Clerk of Court, accompanied by WAKE-CVD-05. Opposing counsel and/or self-represented persons must be notified of the motion to continue before filing it with the Clerk of Superior Court. No continuance shall be granted solely because all parties agree. Motions to continue a case set for trial are generally disfavored and will be granted only upon good cause shown.
Wake County Local Rule 8.3. Continuances; Timing.
A motion to continue must be filed no later than three (3) business days before the day of court on which the case is set. Motions to continue filed thereafter will not be considered until the calling of the calendar, except where the motion reflects extreme hardship or extraordinary circumstances. Parties who are moving to continue a case set for trial should be prepared to move forward with trial in the event the motion to continue is denied.
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6. Time.
(d) For motions, affidavits. – A written motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served not later than five days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of the court. Such an order may for cause shown be made on ex parte application. When a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion; and except as otherwise provided in Rule 59(c), opposing affidavits shall be served at least two days before the hearing. If the opposing affidavit is not served on the other parties at least two days before the hearing on the motion, the court may continue the matter for a reasonable period to allow the responding party to prepare a response, proceed with the matter without considering the untimely served affidavit, or take such other action as the ends of justice require. For the purpose of this two-day requirement only, service shall mean personal delivery, facsimile transmission, or other means such that the party actually receives the affidavit within the required time.
North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 . Competence.
A lawyer shall not handle a legal matter that the lawyer knows or should know he or she is not competent to handle without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle the matter. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of law or the Rules of Professional Conduct;
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct
A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
A judge should 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.
Canon 3(A)(1):
A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.
Canon 3(A)(4):
A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person’s lawyer, full right to be heard according to law.
Canon 3(A)(5):
A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
Canon 3(B)(1):
A judge should diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials.
N.C. Constitution, Article I, Section 18
“All courts shall be open; every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.” North Carolina Constitution