James E. "Jim" Hickmon

James E. "Jim" Hickmon

recognized lawyers icon Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2026
Awarded Practice Areas
Litigation - Trusts and Estates
Works at
North Carolina Estate Planning & Fiduciary Law

1 Best Lawyers award

North Carolina Estate Planning & Fiduciary Law logo

Biography

James E. Hickmon, known to clients as Jim, is the principal attorney of North Carolina Estate Planning & Fiduciary Law in Charlotte, North Carolina. Since 2001, he has represented individuals, families, fiduciaries, and closely held business owners in matters involving estate planning, probate, trusts and estates, and fiduciary litigation. His practice also includes litigation involving trusts and estates disputes, helping clients address contested estate matters, fiduciary responsibilities, and business succession concerns.

Jim is certified by the North Carolina State Bar Board of Legal Specialization as a Board Certified Specialist in Estate Planning and Probate Law. He is also a Certified Financial Planner®, providing clients with guidance that considers both the legal and financial aspects of estate and succession planning. His work focuses on helping families preserve wealth, transfer assets efficiently, and plan for the continuity of family-owned businesses across generations.

Throughout his career, Jim has advised clients involved in a wide range of industries, including farming, trucking, real estate development, and software engineering. He regularly counsels clients on wills, trusts, business succession planning, estate administration, fiduciary matters, and litigation involving trusts and estates.

Jim earned his Juris Doctor from Wake Forest University School of Law, his MBA in Finance from East Carolina University, and his Bachelor of Science in Finance from the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Works at
North Carolina Estate Planning & Fiduciary Law

1 Best Lawyers award

North Carolina Estate Planning & Fiduciary Law logo

Locations

Education

  • The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, B.S.
  • East Carolina University, MBA
  • Wake Forest University, J.D.

Bar Admissions

  • Virginia, Virginia State Bar, 2001
  • North Carolina, Board Certified Specialist in Estate Planning and Probate Law and Certified Financial Planner
  • North Carolina, North Carolina Bar Association, 2004

Court Admissions

  • United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia
  • United States District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia
  • United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina
  • United States Tax Court
  • United States Supreme Court

Affiliations

  • North Carolina Bar Association: drafting subcommittee for the North Carolina Uniform Power of Attorney Act - Member 2014-2017
  • North Carolina Bar Association: Litigation and Dispute Resolution Committee - Chair
  • North Carolina Bar Association: Estate Planning and Fiduciary Law Section - Council 2016-2018
  • ABA House of Delegates - Member Since 2020
  • American Bar Association's RPTE Committee on Uniform Laws for Trusts and Estates - Member 2013 Chair 2021-2023

Client Testimonials

Awards & Focus

Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027 for work in:
  • Litigation - Trusts and Estates
Awards:
  • 2016 Honor Roll, Mecklenburg Access to Justice Pro Bono Partners Program, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont

  • Avvo Superb Rated Lawyer - Rated 10.0

  • Business North Carolina Legal Elite, Estate Planning Section, 2010, 2012 through 2016, and 2019

  • AV Preeminent Peer Rated Lawyer, Martindale-Hubbell, since 2011

  • North Carolina Super Lawyers Magazine, Thomson Reuters, since 2016

Case History

Cases
  • Williams v. Williams, No. COA13-55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)
Amber Lavone Williams asserted that she was the daughter of Willie James Ingram. While Mr. Ingram was seriously ill, she allegedly arranged to be added as co-owner of his approximately $200,000 BB&T account and obtained a durable power of attorney dated five days before his death. Mr. Ingram died without a will, and Ms. Williams was appointed administratrix of the estate. Although the Clerk of Court later determined that Ms. Williams was not Mr. Ingram’s lawful daughter or heir, she remained administratrix over the objections of Mr. Ingram’s legitimate heirs. The heirs filed suit against Ms. Williams, individually and in her capacity as administratrix, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, commingling, and conversion of estate assets. The trial court later disqualified Ms. Williams’ attorneys from representing her in any capacity after finding an inherent conflict of interest arising from their representation of her in both her individual and fiduciary roles. Ms. Williams and her attorneys appealed the ruling. Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Ms. Williams’ personal interests were materially adverse to her duties as administratrix and that the law firm could not represent her in both capacities. Mr. Hickmon represented Mr. Ingram’s heirs at law.
  • Wortman v. Hutaff, 2012 NCBC 9
In 2007, the co-executors and successor co-trustees of Dan Moser’s estate filed resignations, but no court approved those resignations. A golf-development LLC partially owned by the estate later defaulted on a loan, and a 2009 foreclosure involving the golf course resulted in an alleged deficiency of approximately $412,000. Holding: The court determined that the resignations were ineffective, meaning the defendants remained trustees and could face liability for alleged failures to act after attempting to resign. The court also denied the defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss, which included a statute-of-limitations argument. Mr. Hickmon represented the estate’s beneficiaries.
  • In Re Russo, No. COA25-321 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026 (published)
Leonard Russo’s 2012 Will named his wife, Grace, as executor and designated the drafting attorney’s PLLC as successor executor and trustee of a testamentary trust for Grace during her lifetime, with the remainder to his grandson, Devin Russo. Following Leonard Russo’s death in 2018, no individual or entity qualified as executor or trustee for more than five years. Devin subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action seeking appointment of appropriate fiduciaries.
Attorneys representing Grace and the law firm PLLC argued that Devin’s filing triggered the Will’s no contest clause and disinherited him from the trust. Devin contended that Grace had effectively renounced her right to serve as executor by failing to qualify during the five-year period after the decedent’s death. He also argued that the law firm PLLC could not serve as executor or trustee because it was not chartered as a trust company by the North Carolina Banking Commission. The trial court ruled that Devin’s declaratory judgment action did not trigger the no contest clause, but concluded that the law firm PLLC could serve as trustee. Devin appealed.
Holding: The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that Devin had standing to pursue the declaratory judgment action and that his petition did not trigger the Will’s no contest provision because he sought enforcement, rather than invalidation, of the Will’s terms. The court further held that the law firm PLLC could not serve as executor or trustee without obtaining a charter from the North Carolina State Banking Commissioner. The court also determined that questions concerning whether Grace’s delay constituted waiver or rendered her unsuitable to serve required further proceedings.
Outcome: Vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Mr. Hickmon represented the appellant, Devin Russo.
  • In Re Purported Will of Ruby Shaw Shephard, 235 N.C. App. 298 (2014)
A surviving spouse petitioned for and received an elective share before filing a caveat challenging the validity of the will. The trial court granted summary judgment for the propounder based on election-of-remedies and estoppel arguments. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an elective share petition is not inconsistent with filing a caveat and therefore does not bar the challenge to the will. The court also determined that judicial estoppel did not apply. The caveator’s statement in the elective share petition that the decedent died “testate” reflected the legal presumption that a probated will remains valid unless and until it is set aside. The court further concluded that pursuing an elective share did not create quasi-estoppel because the caveator would have been entitled to the same amount regardless. Mr. Hickmon represented the caveator/surviving spouse.

Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.

Please use the print button to print this profile page.

Spinning circle Big letter B