Inquiry Concerning Judge Christian Coomer

Judge Christian Coomer, a member of the Georgia Court of Appeals, faced 36 counts of misconduct brought by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), covering his handling of a client's legal matters, use of campaign funds, and financial disclosures, some of which happened before he became a judge. After a lengthy hearing, the JQC's Hearing Panel recommended he be removed from office. The Supreme Court of Georgia had to decide whether the Hearing Panel applied the right rules in reaching that recommendation. The court found two major errors: the Code of Judicial Conduct does not cover conduct from before someone becomes a judge or judicial candidate, and conduct outside a judge's official duties can only be punished if done in bad faith, not mere carelessness. Because the Hearing Panel's findings did not clearly separate pre-judicial conduct or clearly find bad faith, the court sent the case back for new findings rather than deciding discipline itself.

The Code of Judicial Conduct applies only to conduct occurring while a person is already a judge or judicial candidate, and non-judicial conduct can support discipline only if done in bad faith, not mere negligence; because the Hearing Panel's findings did not clearly apply these standards, the case must be sent back for new findings.

The decision limits how far judicial ethics investigations can reach into a judge's life before they took the bench and clarifies that sloppy or ignorant conduct alone cannot justify removing a judge. This affects how the JQC investigates and disciplines all Georgia judges going forward.

Remanded with direction for new findings within 60 days

1. The court explained that the Georgia Constitution splits judicial discipline power between the JQC, which investigates and recommends, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, which alone imposes discipline, so the Supreme Court reviews legal conclusions fresh (de novo) while deferring to the Hearing Panel's factual and credibility findings.
2. Examining the text of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the court found it applies only to people who are already judges or judicial candidates, not to conduct that happened before someone sought a judicial position, even though the JQC's rules had suggested otherwise.
3. The court noted the JQC itself had previously reached this same conclusion in a 2018 advisory opinion before later charging Judge Coomer with pre-judicial conduct anyway, without ever addressing that earlier position.
4. Turning to the constitutional grounds for discipline, the court explained that 'willful misconduct in office' requires bad-faith actions taken specifically while exercising judicial power, and that 'conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice' outside that judicial role also requires bad faith, not mere negligence or ignorance of the law.
5. Because none of the charges against Judge Coomer involved actions taken in his judicial capacity, the Director needed to prove bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, but the Hearing Panel's report was ambiguous about whether it actually found bad faith or simply concluded he had been careless or uninformed.
6. Since deciding whether Judge Coomer acted knowingly or merely out of ignorance requires weighing witness credibility from a lengthy hearing, the Supreme Court concluded only the Hearing Panel, which heard the testimony firsthand, could make that determination, requiring a remand.

• Judge Christian Coomer
• Judicial Qualifications Commission
• judicial misconduct
• Georgia Court of Appeals
• campaign finance violations