N.C. Gen. R. Prac. Super. & Dist. Ct. 3.1

(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,

— alimony or post-separation support.

3. When none of the above priorities applies, priority shall be as

follows: superior court, district court, magistrate’s court.

(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 court proceedings 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) When settlement proceedings have been ordered in superior or district

court cases, only trials, hearings upon dispositive motions, and hearings upon

motions scheduled for counties with less than one court session per month shall have

precedence over settlement proceedings.

(e) When a mediator, other neutral, or attorney learns of a scheduling

conflict between a court proceeding and a settlement proceeding, the mediator, other

neutral, unrepresented parties or attorneys shall promptly give written notice to the

appropriate judges and request them to resolve the conflict; stating therein the

circumstances relevant to a determination under (d) above.

(f) 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.