NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-36 (2026)
Inherent powers of courts unaffected
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 84
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of the court to deal with its attorneys. (1937, c. 51, s. 4.)
§ 84-36.1. Clerks of court to certify orders.
The clerk of any court of this State in which a member of the North Carolina State Bar is convicted of any criminal offense, disciplined, found to be in contempt of the court or adjudged incompetent shall transmit a certified copy of the order or judgment to the secretary-treasurer of the North Carolina State Bar within 10 days of the entry of such judgment or order. (1975, c. 582, s. 11.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case: Sisk v. Transylvania Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 695 S.E.2d 429 (N.C. 2010).
Sisk v. Transylvania Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 695 S.E.2d 429 (N.C. 2010). “An attorney admitted pro hac vice is as much subject to this inherent authority of the court as is an attorney licensed in North Carolina, and the discretion summarily to revoke pro hac vice status pursuant to section 84-4.”
Boyce v. N.C. State Bar, 814 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). “" Neither party contests Plaintiff is a member of the State Bar, by virtue of having earned a license to practice law and by virtue of paying annual dues to the State Bar.”
Egelhof Ex Rel. Red Hat, Inc. v. Szulik, 668 S.E.2d 367 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). “" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 84-36 (2007). This power includes the power to disbar attorneys appearing before it.”
North Carolina State Bar v. Randolph, 386 S.E.2d 185 (N.C. 1989). “” N.C.G.S. § 84-36 (1985). Thus, plaintiff and the trial courts of this state share concurrent jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline.”
Beard v. North Carolina State Bar, 357 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. 1987). “N.C.G.S. § 84-36 (1985). Inherent power is that which the court necessarily possesses irrespective of constitutional provisions.”
Gardner v. North Carolina State Bar, 341 S.E.2d 517 (N.C. 1986). “The question presented by the petitioners in this case is of sufficient importance to warrant the superior court’s consideration.”
In Re Key, 643 S.E.2d 452 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). “The existence of this inherent authority of the courts to discipline attorneys was recognized by the General Assembly in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-36 , which provides: “Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of the court to…”
Cunningham v. Selman, 689 S.E.2d 517 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). ““Another statute in the same chapter, [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-36 ], however, saves and protects the inherent powers of the court to regulate and discipline attorneys practicing before it.”
In Re the Suspension of the Right to Practice Law of Palmer, 252 S.E.2d 784 (N.C. 1979). “) also created the North Carolina State Bar as an agency of the state and granted to that agency considerable power in the licensing and disciplining of attorneys.”
Swenson v. Thibaut, 250 S.E.2d 279 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “Another statute in the same chapter, (G.S. 84-36), however, saves and protects the inherent powers of the court to regulate and discipline attorneys practicing before it.”
In Re Burton, 126 S.E.2d 581 (N.C. 1962). “G.S. 84-36. However, it was said in McMichael v.”
In Re Nw. Bonding Co., Inc., 192 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972). “G.S. 84-36 specifically provides, however, that the provisions of these statutes are not to be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of a court to deal with its attorneys.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.