Inquiry Concerning Judge Christian Coomer

Christian Coomer was a lawyer and state legislator who became a Georgia Court of Appeals judge in 2018. Before and around the time he became a judge, he drafted wills for an elderly client, James Filhart, that named himself and his family as beneficiaries and accepted a large unsecured loan from Filhart. He also used campaign funds to pay for a family vacation to Hawaii and failed to properly report some campaign account transfers to his law firm. The Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Coomer with violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, and after an earlier remand from the Supreme Court of Georgia to apply the correct legal standards, a Hearing Panel again found he acted in bad faith and recommended removal. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed those findings, agreed that much of his conduct violated the Code and was undertaken in bad faith for his own financial benefit, and ordered his removal from the bench.

The court held that Judge Coomer's drafting of self-benefiting estate documents, acceptance of an unsecured loan from a vulnerable client, and misuse and nondisclosure of campaign funds violated the Code of Judicial Conduct's rules requiring compliance with law and promotion of public confidence, and that this conduct was undertaken in bad faith, making removal the appropriate sanction.

The ruling removes a sitting appellate judge from office and bars him from holding judicial office in Georgia for seven years. It also signals to all Georgia judges that mishandling campaign funds or exploiting a client relationship, even before taking the bench, can trigger the harshest possible discipline once in judicial office.

Removed from office

1. Because Coomer's conduct occurred largely outside his role as a judge, the Georgia Constitution only allows discipline if the conduct amounted to 'conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice' taken in bad faith, meaning done knowingly and out of self-interest or ill will rather than mere carelessness.
2. The court deferred to the Hearing Panel's factual findings, which are only overturned if clearly erroneous, because the panel personally observed witnesses' testimony and credibility during a multi-month hearing.
3. The court found that drafting a will naming himself as a beneficiary while representing Filhart, and failing to report certain campaign fund transfers, violated Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to respect and comply with the law.
4. The court further found that accepting an unsecured, unguaranteed loan from a vulnerable elderly client, drafting self-benefiting estate documents, stalling on document requests, and misusing and concealing campaign funds for a family vacation violated Rule 1.2 (A), which requires judges to act in ways that promote public confidence in judicial integrity.
5. The court concluded these actions were taken in bad faith because Coomer knew his duties and acted out of self-interest, exploiting a trust-based relationship with a vulnerable person and repeatedly delaying corrective action until it served his own interests.
6. Having found the conduct violated the Code and was taken in bad faith, the court determined removal was warranted, citing precedent removing judges for exploiting vulnerable people, disregarding the law for personal benefit, and being dishonest during disciplinary proceedings.

• judicial removal
• Judicial Qualifications Commission
• campaign finance violations
• elder client exploitation
• Court of Appeals of Georgia