Order Adopting Amendments to Rule 3 of the General
Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts
Rule 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
When an attorney has conflicting engagements in different
courts, priority shall be as follows: Appellate Courts, Superior
Court, District Court, Magistrate's Court.
At mixed sessions, criminal cases in which the defendant is
in jail shall have absolute priority.
The General Rules of Practice for the Superior and
District Courts are amended by adding a new Rule 3.1 to
read:
(a) In resolving scheduling conflicts when an attorney has
conflicting engagements in different courts, the following
priorities should ordinarily prevail:
1. Appellate courts should prevail over trial courts.
2. Any of the trial court matters listed in this subdivision,
regardless of trial division, should prevail over any trial
court matter not listed in this subdivision, regardless of
trial division; there is no priority among the matters
listed in this subdivision:
- any trial or hearing in a capital case;
- the trial in any case designated pursuant to Rule 2.1
of these Rules;
- the trial in a civil action that has been
peremptorily set as the first case for trial at a
session of superior court;
- the trial of a criminal case in superior court, when
the defendant is in jail or when the defendant is
charged with a Class A through E felony and the
trial is reasonably expected to last for more than
one week;
- the trial in an action or proceeding in district
court in which any of the following is contested:
- termination of parental rights,
- child custody,
- adjudication of abuse, neglect or
dependency or disposition following
adjudication,
- interim or final equitable distribution,
(b) When an attorney learns of a scheduling conflict between
matters in the same priority category, the attorney shall
promptly give written notice to opposing counsel, the clerk of
all courts and the appropriate judges in all cases, stating
therein the circumstances relevant to resolution of the conflict
under these guidelines. When the attorney learns of the conflict
before the date on which the matters are scheduled to be heard,
the appropriate judges are Senior Resident Superior Court Judges
for matters pending in the Superior Court Division and Chief
District Court Judges for matters pending in the District Court
Division; otherwise the appropriate judges are the judges
presiding over those matters. The appropriate judges should
promptly confer, resolve the conflict, and notify counsel of the
resolution.
(c) In resolving scheduling conflicts between matters in the
same priority category, the presiding judges should give
consideration to the following:
- the comparative age of the cases;
- the order in which the trial dates were set by
published calendar, order or notice;
- the complexity of the cases;
- the estimated trial time;
- the number of attorneys and parties involved;
- whether the trial involves a jury;
- the difficulty or ease of rescheduling;
- the availability of witnesses, especially a child
witness, an expert witness or a witness who must
travel a long distance;
- whether the trial in one of the cases had already
started when the other was scheduled to begin.
(d) Nothing in these guidelines is intended to prevent courts
from voluntarily yielding a favorable scheduling position, and
judges of all courts are urged to communicate with each other in
an effort to lessen the impact of conflicts and continuances on
all courts.
Adopted by the Court in Conference this the 15th day of
August 2002. This amendment shall be promulgated by publication
in the Advance Sheets of the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals. This amendment shall also be published as quickly as
practical on the North Carolina Judicial Branch of Government
Internet Home Page (http://www.nccourts.org).
Edmunds, J
For the Court