Inquiry Concerning Judge Terrinee Lynette Gundy

The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), the body that investigates complaints against Georgia judges, charged Atlanta Municipal Court Judge Terrinee Lynette Gundy with being habitually late to court, excessively absent, and, in one incident, refusing to let six jailed defendants have court appearances they were legally entitled to, which kept them locked up for an extra week. Judge Gundy admitted the tardiness and absenteeism charges and agreed the JQC could prove the jailing incident, though she did not fully concede how those events unfolded. The JQC's Director and Judge Gundy reached an agreement calling for a 30 to 90 day suspension and a public reprimand, which the JQC's Hearing Panel approved and sent to the Supreme Court of Georgia for final sign-off. The court had to decide whether to accept that agreement given how serious the conduct was. The court accepted the agreement but chose the higher end of the suggested punishment, ordering a 90-day unpaid suspension and a public reprimand, while noting its case was more troubling than a prior similar case involving a different judge.

The court held that Judge Gundy's admitted habitual tardiness, excessive absenteeism, and agreement that the JQC could prove she unlawfully delayed release of six jailed defendants violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, warranting acceptance of the negotiated discipline: a 90-day unpaid suspension and public reprimand.

The ruling shows the Supreme Court of Georgia will impose serious, near-maximum non-removal discipline on judges whose chronic absenteeism and tardiness disrupt court operations and, in this case, unlawfully extended defendants' time in jail, reinforcing accountability standards for municipal court judges statewide.

Discipline by consent accepted; 90-day suspension and public reprimand imposed

1. The court reviewed the discipline-by-consent process under JQC Rule 23, which allows the JQC Director and a judge to jointly propose a resolution to formal misconduct charges for the Hearing Panel and the Supreme Court of Georgia to approve.
2. The court found that Judge Gundy had admitted the truth of the tardiness and absenteeism counts (violations of Code of Judicial Conduct rules requiring promptness, public confidence in the judiciary, and prioritizing judicial duties) and had agreed the JQC could prove the more serious counts involving unlawfully delaying release of six jailed defendants.
3. Comparing this case to a prior judicial discipline case, Inquiry Concerning Stokes, where a public reprimand alone was imposed for similar but less severe tardiness and absenteeism, the court concluded Judge Gundy's conduct was more egregious because her absences and lateness were more frequent and because her case involved actual harm to defendants who stayed in jail longer than legally required.
4. The court weighed mitigating factors offered by the JQC Director, such as health issues, cessation of the conduct, remorse, and voter retention, but expressed skepticism that some of these (voter retention, civic involvement) were true mitigation for failing to show up to work, and found much of the misconduct remained unexplained.
5. Despite serious concerns, particularly about the incident that kept defendants in jail longer than legally permitted, the court decided that the case's three-year pendency and the need for finality for both Judge Gundy and the public favored accepting the negotiated 90-day suspension and public reprimand rather than rejecting the agreement and prolonging the matter.

• judicial misconduct
• Atlanta Municipal Court
• judge suspension
• habitual tardiness
• wrongful detention