Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. VII. Discipline, removal, and involuntary retirement of judges.

Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 6, § 7, Para. 7; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1722, § 1/SR 267; Ga. L. 1986, p. 1619, §§ 1, 2/HR 506; Ga. L. 2016, p. 896, § 2/HR 1113.

The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2016, p. 896, § 2/HR 1113), which revised subparagraph (4) of subparagraph (b) by designating the first sentence as subparagraph (A), and designating the second sentence as subparagraph (B) and adding “except as provided by the General Assembly by general law” at the end, was ratified at the general election held on November 8, 2016.

judge or judicial candidate.

Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) Hearing Panel’s recommendation to remove the judge from the judge’s seat on the Court of Appeals was remanded because the JQC could not pursue charges against the judge arising from actions taken before the judge became a judge or judicial candidate; and it erroneously determined that negligent conduct outside the judicial capacity could warrant discipline even though the case law made it clear that conduct outside the judicial capacity had to be done with bad faith to warrant discipline. Inquiry Concerning Coomer, 315 Ga. 841, 885 S.E.2d 738, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 59 (2023). None of the counts against the judge alleged anything about actions the judge took in a judicial capacity; accordingly, none of those counts permitted discipline on the ground that the judge’s conduct amounted to “willful misconduct in office.” Further, none of those counts would permit discipline for “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” absent a finding of bad faith; however, the Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel’s report and recommendation was ambiguous as to whether the Panel found that the judge had acted in bad faith in committing any of the proved violations. Inquiry Concerning Coomer, 315 Ga. 841, 885 S.E.2d 738, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 59 (2023). Commission was not authorized to

regulate judicial organizations.

Judicial Qualifications Commission’s authority was limited to disciplining individual judges. Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. VI and VII, and did not extend to dictating whether the Georgia Council of State Court Judges could file an amicus brief in pending litigation; the Council was permitted to file such briefs pursuant to its duties and authority under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Para. I, and O.C.G.A. § 15-7-26(b), although individual judges generally could not. In re Judicial Qualifications Comm’n Formal Advisory Opinion No. 241, 301 Ga. 54, 799 S.E.2d 781, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 319 (2017).

Supreme Court had authority to review Judicial Qualifications Commission’s advisory opinions.

Although a petition filed by a council of state court judges seeking review of the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s (JQC) formal advisory opinion regarding public access to courtrooms presented no justiciable controversy, the court had authority to review the opinion; Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. VII(a), vested the court with the authority to adopt rules for the JQC, and JQC Rule 22(b) required the JQC to reconsider its formal advisory opinions at the court’s request. In re Judicial Qualifications Comm’n Formal Advisory Opinion No. 239, 300 Ga. 291, 794 S.E.2d 631, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 777 (2016).

Bad faith shown.

Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the judge violated Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1.1, 1.2(A), 1.2(B), and 2.2 and acted in bad faith by unjustifiably holding a petitioner in contempt and failing to advise the petitioner of the contempt charges, provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges, and permit the petitioner the assistance of counsel and the right to call witnesses. Inquiry Concerning Judge Peterson, 319 Ga. 316, 903 S.E.2d 645, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 148 (2024). Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the judge violated Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1.1, 1.2(A), 1.2(B), and 2.2 and acted in bad faith by requesting sheriff’s deputies to work throughout the night so that the judge could have after-hours access to the courthouse and using the panic button to summon a deputy to escort the judge to court, and in so doing failed to demonstrate the decorum and temperament required of a judge. Inquiry Concerning Judge Peterson, 319 Ga. 316, 903 S.E.2d 645, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 148 (2024). Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the judge violated Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1.1, 1.2(A), 1.2(B), and 2.2 and acted in bad faith by telling two members of the judge’s homeowners’ association (HOA) board that the judge would dismiss the judge’s lawsuit against the HOA and the board if the board held a special election because the judge, who was acting as the judge’s own counsel in the matter, communicated and attempted to negotiate with parties to the lawsuit, even though the judge knew the parties were represented by counsel. Inquiry Concerning Judge Peterson, 319 Ga. 316, 903 S.E.2d 645, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 148 (2024). Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the judge violated Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1.1, 1.2(A), 1.2(B), and 2.2 and acted in bad faith by permitting and considering ex parte communications because the judge accepted and considered the petitioner’s daughter’s emailed caveat, of which the petitioner and the petitioner’s counsel had no notice. Inquiry Concerning Judge Peterson, 319 Ga. 316, 903 S.E.2d 645, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 148 (2024).

Judge’s resignation caused removal petition to be moot.

Petition to remove a judge from office was dismissed because the judge resigned, which resignation was accepted by the Governor of Georgia; thus, the request to remove the judge from office became moot. Inquiry Concerning Johnson, 316 Ga. 876, 892 S.E.2d 1, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 159 (2023).