North Carolina’s system for policing bad lawyers is on the verge of a major political makeover, and it is not a subtle one. A legislative review panel has signed off on recommendations that would let elected officials choose nearly every member of the state’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission, the tribunal that rules on contested attorney discipline cases. If lawmakers go along, control over misconduct investigations and sanctions would move away from the State Bar’s internal nominating process and toward politicians, a change supporters call accountability and critics call straight-up politicization.
The State Bar Grievance Review Committee voted to advance a package that would turn all 26 seats on the Disciplinary Hearing Commission into political appointments. Under the plan, the House, Senate and governor would each get seven picks, with five going to the chief justice. Committee co‑chairs described the overhaul as a way to “politics‑proof” the system, but by the committee’s own math Republicans would likely end up naming 19 of the 26 members. The committee also asked the State Bar for a detailed rundown of employees’ party affiliations and campaign donations; the bar refused, saying staff work is “apolitical,” and State Bar president‑elect Kevin Williams voted against the panel’s report, according to The News & Observer.
How the appointments would be split
Under the proposal, elected officials, not the State Bar’s nominating committee, would fill nearly every seat on the commission. Critics argue that shift would invite political calculations into decisions about which lawyers keep their licenses. The plan would also block non‑lawyers from serving on hearing panels and would make more of the disciplinary process confidential, changes the bar warns would chip away at public transparency. In practical terms, the governor would be the only reliable source of Democratic appointees, leaving Republican officeholders with dominant influence over the commission, as reported by WRAL.
Where the panel came from and what’s already changed
The General Assembly created the Grievance Review Committee in 2023 to scrutinize the State Bar’s grievance system and recommend changes. The committee can suggest tweaks to state law but cannot directly rewrite bar rules. Some of its ideas are already on the books: S.L. 2024‑25 (S790) requires the State Bar to give accused attorneys copies of complaints and supporting documents and orders the bar to set up an expungement process for certain disciplinary records. Those provisions are detailed in materials from the North Carolina General Assembly and its summary of S.L. 2024‑25 available through the North Carolina General Assembly.
Bar pushback and legal concerns
State Bar leaders and some prosecutors are not exactly lining up to applaud. They argue the package moves too fast and strips away safeguards meant to protect the public from unethical attorneys. State Bar Executive Director Peter Bolac said the proposals “appear to have been put together without broader input or a comprehensive understanding of the State Bar’s work,” and veteran defense lawyer Alan Schneider labeled the revamp unnecessary. Tempers have flared at the committee’s meetings: during one session, a speaker was escorted out after refusing to stop shouting during public comment, according to WRAL.
What happens next
The committee’s report now heads to the General Assembly, where lawmakers could take up the recommendations in this year’s short session. Supporters say putting elected officials in charge of appointments will boost accountability. Opponents warn it could tie discipline outcomes to partisan loyalties instead of professional standards. Both legislators and bar leaders are waiting to see whether the General Assembly converts the panel’s blueprint into law, as reported by The News & Observer.
