R. Judi. Qual. Commi. Ga. 6

As amended through October 9, 2024

Rule 6 - Grounds for Discipline; Sanctions; Felony Indictment or Conviction

A.Grounds for Discipline. Pursuant to Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, the grounds for discipline are:

(1) willful misconduct in office;

(2) willful and persistent failure to perform the duties of office;

(3) habitual intemperance;

(4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; and

(5) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.

B.Sanctions. The following sanctions may be imposed upon a respondent who has committed such misconduct:

(1) removal by the Supreme Court, with or without a prohibition on seeking or holding judicial office in the future;

(2) suspension by the Supreme Court, with such conditions and restrictions as deemed appropriate;

(3) imposition by the Supreme Court of limitations on the performance of judicial duties;

(4) censure by the Supreme Court;

(5) public reprimand by order of the Supreme Court;

(6) private admonition by the Investigative Panel with the consent of the judge, provided that a private admonition may be used in subsequent proceedings as evidence of prior misconduct solely upon the issue of the sanction to be imposed, pursuant to Rule 17.D (1);

(7) deferred discipline agreement; and

(8) other appropriate disciplinary action.

C.Felony Indictment or Conviction. Suspension or removal of a judge based on his or her indictment for a felony by a grand jury of this state or the United States or his or her initial or final conviction of a felony in a court of this state or the United States shall be governed by the procedures and sanctions set forth in Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (b) and (c) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. See Rule 15.A and 15.B.

R. Judi. Qual. Commi. Ga. 6

Adopted effective January 1, 2018.

Commentary

[1] Removal and suspension are the most serious sanctions that can be imposed by the judicial discipline system. They can be imposed only by the Supreme Court, and their use is appropriate when the respondent's misconduct demonstrates that the respondent is unfit to hold judicial office.

[2] In addition to any other qualification for judicial office, if a person has been removed from any judicial office upon order of the Supreme Court after review, that person shall not be eligible to be elected or appointed to any judicial office in this state until seven years have elapsed from the time of such removal. See OCGA § 15-1-13.

[3] In many instances, however, judicial misconduct is of a lesser nature that does not require the judge's removal or suspension, either to protect the public or to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. The facts may indicate that the judge can continue to serve effectively with certain limitations (e.g., limitation to a specific court or docket or participation in a therapy, counseling, or recovery program). In these cases, the Hearing Panel should recommend, and the Supreme Court should exercise its inherent authority to fashion, appropriate limitations and conditions.

[4] A private admonition is a non-public sanction imposed on a judge by the Investigative Panel with the consent of the judge. A private admonition cannot be imposed after the filing and service of formal charges. Only in cases of minor misconduct, when there is little or no injury to the public, the legal system, or the profession, should a private admonition be imposed.

[5] A deferred discipline agreement is a confidential agreement between the judge and the Investigative Panel for the judge to undergo treatment, participate in education programs, or take other corrective action. It is only available as a response to misconduct that can be addressed through treatment, education, or a rehabilitation program. A deferred discipline agreement can only be entered into prior to the filing and service of formal charges.

[6] Some misconduct is so minor that it is appropriate not to impose any discipline. It is not intended that every transgression of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct will result in the imposition of discipline. Whenever the Investigative Panel or the Hearing Panel determines there has been a transgression, it should consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate and the degree of discipline to be imposed through a reasonable and reasoned application of the text of the Code, taking into account such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. See Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, Scope section, Paragraph [6].

[7] Under these Rules, it is not within the Hearing Panel's authority to impose public discipline. That is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The Hearing Panel's function is to determine facts, make conclusions of law, and recommend sanctions, or dismiss cases when misconduct was not proven. (See Rule 25 regarding review by the Supreme Court.)