Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.9
Commentary:
[1] Judges shall immediately stop any attempted improper ex parte communication. Rule 2.9 (B) does not excuse a judge from this ethical requirement.
[2] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
[3] See Rules 2.7 and 2.9 (C), addressing limits on the scope of evidence that may be legitimately considered by the court.
[4] In recent years, jurisdictions in Georgia have created what are often called therapeutic, problem-solving, or accountability courts, including drug courts, mental health courts, and veterans' courts. Judges presiding over these courts are often authorized and encouraged to act in non-traditional ways, such as monitoring the progress of participating defendants by communicating directly on issues of fact and law with members of the accountability court team, which may include court staff, lawyers, case managers, service coordinators, and providers, compliance monitors, law enforcement officers, probation officers, and others. In this setting, ex parte communications that would otherwise be prohibited by this Code may be authorized by law, including general or local accountability court rules and standards that have been approved by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Courts using this authority should ensure that participating parties are advised of the potential for and scope of the permitted ex parte communications and have waived on the record with the advice of counsel any objection to such communications. Because the impartiality of a judge is essential to the legitimacy of all courts, any such waiver, while granting permission to the adjudicating authority to participate in ex parte communications, shall not operate as an irreversible bar to a motion for disqualification pursuant to Rule 2.11 based upon factual circumstance arising subsequent to the waiver.
[5] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted.
[6] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.
[7] Whenever presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party, who is to be present or to whom notice is given.
[8] Judges may request a party to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, so long as the other parties are apprised of the request and are given an opportunity to respond to the proposed findings and conclusions.
[9] Judges may consult with other judges on pending proceedings and impending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.
[10] Judges may consult with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning compliance with this Code. Such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of Rule 2.9.
[11] Impending matters and pending proceedings are only as good as the parties make them; neutral and detached impartial judges should not be concerned about augmenting cases.
[12] Judges must take reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure this Rule is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on their staff.
Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.9