EXCLUSIVE: Rutherford County Case Lists ‘None’ as Plaintiff; Order Tied to Senior Judge

A newly filed Rutherford County court case involving a local attorney is raising questions after records showed no named plaintiff, while the initiating order can be traced to the district’s senior judge.

The case is listed in court filings as “None, None vs. Anthony Ryan Morrow.” However, the order that launched the action was signed by J. Thomas Davis, the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for the district.

The unusual structure — a case without a listed plaintiff but tied to a sitting judge — has drawn questions from legal observers reviewing the filing.

Court-initiated proceeding

Filed March 16 in Rutherford County Superior Court, the action seeks to place Morrow on disability inactive status, which would prevent him from practicing law.

Unlike a typical civil lawsuit, where a plaintiff brings claims against a defendant, this case appears to have been initiated by the court itself under its authority to oversee attorneys.

That framework may explain the absence of a named plaintiff, though such listings are rarely seen in standard civil filings and can create confusion about who is formally bringing the case.

The State Bar currently regulates over 33,000 licensed lawyers. There is no public case this reporter found dealing with a situation, after a review of available public records, including a legislative review.

Procedural questions raised

The case structure could raise questions under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure, which governs how civil actions are initiated.

Those rules generally requires a summons issued in the name of the state, identification of a party bringing the action, and proper notice allowing a defendant time to respond.

Court records show an Order to Show Cause was issued and served on Morrow the same day the case was filed. A hearing is scheduled for March 30.

While courts have authority to regulate attorneys who practice before them, the combination of civil case formatting and internal judicial action may become a point of dispute if challenged.

ADA request adds layer

The filing follows a recent request by Morrow for accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act in a separate criminal matter.

The order signed by Davis references that ADA request to District Attorney Ted Bell and to the court, and indicates the show-cause proceeding is secondary, to be pursued if accommodations do not address concerns about Morrow’s ability to practice law.

Bell, a Republican, lost the recent primary election and remains in office until David Norris is sworn in following the November election.

The overlap between a pending ADA accommodation request and a proceeding that could suspend an attorney’s license could raise legal questions about how federal disability protections apply in this context.

Ongoing tensions in courthouse

The case also comes amid ongoing tensions between Morrow and members of the local judiciary, including Robert Martelle, who is referenced in the order but did not sign it.

According to the filing, the court cites multiple incidents involving Morrow, including disputes with courthouse staff, sharply worded filings, and communications critical of judges.

Response from Morrow

Morrow has publicly described the case as retaliatory.

In a social media statement, he said the action is politically motivated and tied to his previous campaign for judicial office, as well as his status as a disabled military veteran.

Morrow lost his bid recently for the Rutherford County District 1 seat in the Republican primary in a five-way race. 

He previously ran unsuccessfully for judge in the 2020 primary. 

Next steps

The case has been assigned to Gary Gavenus, who is scheduled to preside over a March 30 hearing in Rutherford County.

At that hearing, the court is expected to determine whether Morrow should be placed on disability inactive status, which would immediately suspend his ability to practice law.

Broader implications

The case is drawing attention for several reasons, including:

• A filing that lists no named plaintiff

• Use of a civil case format for attorney discipline

• Potential procedural questions under state rules

• The intersection of judicial authority and disability law

As proceedings move forward, the case may test how courts balance their authority to regulate attorneys with procedural requirements and federal disability protections.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into federal law in 1990.