Link to official opinions handed down by the Commission Link to Commission functions and procedures Link to Commission members and staff Link to canons of judicial conduct Link to rules of the Commission Link to forms Links
Opinions
Home / Opinions

The following is a list of opinions handed down by the Judicial Qualifications Commission and a short summary of each opinion. If you wish to read an entire opinion, you may do so by selecting the opinion you wish to read.

The mere fact that an employee works for a law enforcement body in a county different from the county in which they would serve as a Magistrate judge will not change the fact that a conflict of interest would exist and therefore the employee would be unable to serve as a Magistrate.
Opinion No. 230 issued July 24, 1998 has been WITHDRAWN and OVERRULED so as to conform to the statutory provisions of O.C.G.A. 16-10-9 which states: It shall be unlawful for Members of the General Assembly to accept or hold office or employment in the executive branch of the state government or any agency thereof or the judicial branch of the state government.
Summer employment by a law firm of a judge's college age daughter who will be completely isolated from any matter over which her father may preside and in which her employer firm may appear as counsel, does not require automatic disqualification under either Canon 3E or 2A.
Although the current Code of Judicial Conduct contains no absolute prohibition against private meetings between trial judges and jurors, existing case law strongly discourages such meetings and the Commission concludes that the far better practice is for all communications between judges and juries to occur in open court.
There appears to be no express ethical prohibition against dual service as a part-time judge and a member of the General Assembly. However, in campaigning for the legislative position, the prestige of the judicial position must never be misused, traded upon, nor allowed to become embroiled in political controversy.
The disqualification requirement of Opinion No. 220 does not require automatic disqualification in a civil case wherein one of the parties is the Designated Chief Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court.
While any judicial officer or candidate may appropriately discuss the procedures of the court in general terms and/or his or her qualifications, as well as those of any opponent, both the Code of Judicial Conduct and numerous Formal Advisory Opinions prohibit responses to candidate questionnaires involving substantive issues of law which are likely to come before the courts.
The wearing of a candidate "badge" by a lawyer while in the local courthouse and/or while trying cases constitutes conduct falling below the standard of campaign conduct enunciated by the Supreme Court and hence is inappropriate.
Opinion No. 220 issued April 25, 1997 is modified so as to conform to the statutory provisions of O.C.G.A. §15-6-8(4) specifically authorizing the superior courts of this state to exercise general supervision over all inferior tribunals in their respective jurisdictions. Except as modified, Opinion No. 220 remains viable and binding.
It is inappropriate for any judicial officer to accept and/or use "Official Documents" envelopes provided at no cost to the court by advertising agencies for commercial banks and bearing advertisements naming both the court and the bank. Any judicial officer who may have heretofore unknowingly failed to follow the dictates of this Opinion is directed to take such action as may be necessary to come into compliance.
Practicing attorneys who serve as part-time magistrates should not appear as counsel in any Magistrate Court sitting in the same county, regardless of the frequency of such service.
The Commission declines to specify a specific period of time within which a judge must automatically disqualify in cases involving a former law partner, but issues general guidelines which should be considered in reaching an appropriate decision.
Newly elected judges who formerly served as District Attorneys may appropriately preside in cases involving matters which were of record in the District Attorney's office prior to the judge's appointment or election so long as the judge did not personally serve as a lawyer in the matter or otherwise gain knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
The mere leaving of previously contributed 401-K funds with a newly elected judge's former law firm would not constitute a violation of any of the three per se grounds for disqualification in Canon 3E. However, to remove any possible violation of Canon 5C, the judge should pay his pro rata share of the annual management fee paid by his former firm and should also be aware of the Commentary to Canon 3E suggesting disclosure of information which parties might consider relevant even if disqualification is not legally required.
Even without a showing of actual bias, prejudice or unfairness, and regardless of the merits or timeliness of a Motion to Recuse, it is inappropriate for any trial court judge to preside in any action wherein one of the parties holds a judicial office on the same or any other court which sits in the same circuit
It is inappropriate for any judge to use the power and prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of a spouse or immediate family member. Hence, a juvenile court judge should not order children and/or parents to obtain counseling from an organization from which his wife receives remuneration as executive director.
Because a hearing on the merits of a Petition for Revocation of Probation is a separate and distinct "matter in controversy" from the proceeding giving rise to the original sentence, Canon 3E(1)(b) does not require automatic disqualification of a newly appointed Superior Court Judge who previously served as District Attorney when the alleged probation violation occurs subsequent to the date of the judge's swearing in.
A Superior Court Judge elect is neither an officer of a judicial system nor an individual performing judicial functions and thus is not subject to the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct prior to formally assuming office. Accordingly, such individual may appropriately continue the active practice of law and appear as trial counsel for clients during the interim period between election and assumption of office.
All judges have a legal and ethical duty to make timely rulings in all cases, especially those in which the writ of habeas corpus is sought, and undue delay cannot be countenanced under any circumstances.
It is inappropriate for any judicial officer to endorse or otherwise publicly align himself or herself with any private, for-profit probation service.
The mere use of the word "Conservative" in a political advertisement would not be inappropriate.
Neither the Code of Judicial Conduct nor applicable advisory opinions permits a contested judicial election to be conducted as if it were a race for some other political office in which no ethical restraints are mandated and any such conduct will be closely scrutinized and appropriately sanctioned, when necessary.
It is inappropriate for a candidate for judicial office to use the designation "Judge" in political advertising if in fact the candidate does not presently hold a judicial position.
It is inappropriate for a candidate for judicial office to use the designation "Judge" in political advertising without clearly designating therein the judicial position currently held by such candidate.
It is inappropriate for a candidate for judicial office to personally solicit campaign funds in a newspaper advertisement or otherwise.
It is inappropriate for a sitting judge to display a bumper sticker on his personal vehicle urging the re-election of a sitting superior Court Judge.
It is inappropriate for a judicial candidate to act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization.
Fair and truthful criticism of an opponent is not prohibited by Canon 7B(1) (c), but such criticism may not be of such a nature as to bring the candidate's own impartiality or that of the judiciary into question.
If Senior Judges desire to engage in political activity, such Judges shall first declare themselves ineligible to serve as judges in compliance with existing court rules and thereafter refrain from using either their titles or judicial positions to further the interests of any political candidate.
A candidate for judicial office may not personally seek any form of public expression of support or other form of written endorsement for use in a judicial campaign as such conduct is the activity intended to be prohibited by the language of Canon 7B(2) forbidding the solicitation of publicly stated support. Such language does not, however, prohibit candidates from personally establishing campaign committees to undertake such activities nor from thereafter publicizing the names of the individual committee members.
The fact that counsel for a party is an announced candidate for the judicial position then held by the trial judge is not a per se ground for disqualification under Canon 3E(1). However, if a judge is in fact biased or prejudiced toward a party and/or counsel because such counsel is seeking the judicial office then held by such judge, or for any other reason, of if, in addition to the political contest, other related circumstances are such that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, said judge has an affirmative duty to recuse, and a failure to do so may be challenged in the appropriate forum.
Recognizing the fact that most judges in this State must themselves periodically seek election to public office, the mere attendance by a candidate for judicial office at a fund-raising event would not, standing alone, constitute a "public endorsement" prohibited by Canon 7A(l)(b). Similarly, a candidate's attendance at political party business meetings relating to fund raising would not be inappropriate provided the judge is not a member of the committee and does not participate, either directly or indirectly, in any fund-raising efforts on behalf of the party or any candidate of the party.
Judicial participation on a County Board of Ethics established to hear complaints against elected public officials is inappropriate, nor should judges appoint a designee to serve on such boards.
Judicial participation in the formulation, distribution and/or dissemination of family violence protocols for use by judges is inappropriate. However, participation in certain limited aspects of the work of Family Violence Task Forces is permissible provided such service does not cast doubt on the capacity of judges to impartially decide issues coming before them. The Commission further suggests that the proper judicial use of such materials as the Model Judicial Protocol for Family Violence Incidents proposed by the Georgia Commission on Family Violence is for education and not prejudgment.
The practice of law by senior judges should not be condoned, and if senior judges desire to engage in the practice of law, such judges should comply with USC 18.8 and declare themselves ineligible to serve as judges.
Under the circumstances described in the request, it is not inappropriate for the wife of the senior partner of a part-time Juvenile Court Judge to serve as Director of a local Court Appointed Special Advocates program ("CASA"), but great care must be exercised to assure full compliance with Canon 2.
A Chief Magistrate sitting by designation in another court is disqualified from hearing a case involving an associate magistrate whom such Magistrate appointed even after orally offering recusal with disclosures to all parties. If the 3E disqualification is to be waived, the remittal procedures outlined in Canon 3F should be followed.
In light of the language of Canon 5B(1) of the 1994 Code of Judicial Conduct, continued service by a full-time judge on the Board of Directors for the Georgia affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") is inappropriate.
The Mayor of a city may not simultaneously serve as the judge of that city's Municipal Court.
It is not inappropriate for a part-time magistrate to simultaneously be employed as the Clerk of the Recorder's Court of the same county in which the judge presides as a part-time magistrate.
It would not be inappropriate for the Chief Judge of each judicial circuit, at the request of the State Commission on Family Violence, to convene a meeting to decide how best to form a circuit-wide task force.
It would be inappropriate for a law clerk for a Superior Court Judge to organize and operate a research-for-hire business as such activity would likely lead to violations of Canon 2.