Inquiry Concerning Judge Christina Peterson

Christina Peterson was elected judge of the Douglas County Probate Court in 2020. The state's Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), which investigates judicial misconduct, charged her with dozens of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct after complaints about her handling of court business, treatment of county staff, a fight with her homeowners' association, and especially her jailing a woman for contempt without a fair hearing. A JQC hearing panel heard testimony over seven days and found Judge Peterson violated many rules, some serious enough to warrant discipline. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed those findings and the panel's credibility judgments, including findings that Peterson lied under oath about several incidents. The court agreed that 12 counts, covering the contempt case, mistreatment of county employees, communicating improperly with parties in her HOA lawsuit, and mishandling an estate case, were proven and warranted punishment. Because of the seriousness and pattern of this misconduct, plus her dishonesty during the investigation, the court ordered her removed from the bench.

The court held that Judge Peterson's conduct, particularly jailing a woman for contempt without due process, mistreating county personnel, negotiating with represented parties in her own lawsuit, and mishandling an estate case, amounted to willful misconduct in office or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, justifying removal from office under the Georgia Constitution.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia judges must provide basic due-process protections even in minor court matters like probate contempt proceedings, and that dishonesty during a judicial ethics investigation can itself justify removal. It also gives litigants, court staff, and future JQC panels a detailed roadmap for what counts as disciplinable judicial misconduct.

Removed from office

1. The court reviewed the hearing panel's factual findings for clear error, giving deference to its credibility determinations because the panel personally observed Judge Peterson's live testimony and found much of it dishonest.
2. On the contempt matter, the court applied due-process rules for indirect contempt (contempt for acts outside the judge's presence), which require notice, a chance to respond, and the right to counsel; Judge Peterson gave none of these before jailing the petitioner.
3. The court explained that discipline under the Georgia Constitution requires either 'willful misconduct in office' (bad-faith acts done as a judge) or 'conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice' (good-faith judicial acts that still look unjudicial, or bad-faith acts done outside a judicial role), and found bad faith proven by her dishonest testimony and self-interested actions.
4. Applying that framework, the court found bad faith in the contempt ruling, in her demands for after-hours deputy coverage and misuse of a courthouse panic button, and in negotiating with represented parties at her HOA meeting while acting as her own lawyer.
5. In the estate (year's support) matter, the court found she permitted improper ex parte communications with one side of a case, which was prejudicial to the administration of justice even if done in good faith, because it created an appearance of favoritism.
6. Weighing the pattern of misconduct across multiple unrelated incidents together with her dishonest testimony during the investigation as an aggravating factor, the court concluded removal, rather than a lesser sanction, was warranted.

• judicial removal
• Judicial Qualifications Commission
• probate court judge
• criminal contempt due process
• judicial misconduct