316 Ga. 876 FINAL COPY
S22Z0858. INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE GERALD JOHNSON.
PER CURIAM.
This judicial discipline matter is before the Court on the Report
and Recommendation of the Hearing Panel of the Judicial
Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) and timely filed Notices of
Exceptions filed by the Director of the JQC and respondent Gerald
Johnson. The Hearing Panel recommended that Johnson be
removed from office for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 1.2 (B) of the
Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct (“CJC”). Johnson, however,
submitted his resignation to Governor Brian Kemp shortly after the
Hearing Panel filed its Report and Recommendation. Removal from
office is the only sanction the JQC seeks, and we cannot remove a
former judge from an office he no longer holds. Accordingly, we
dismiss.
According to the formal charges, which Johnson admits are true and correct, on the evening of October 18, 2021, the Habersham
County Sheriff’s Office received a call regarding multiple gunshots
fired in the residential area where Johnson lived. Travis Jarrell, the
Habersham County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant who responded to the
call, knew Johnson and knew that Johnson lived in the area, so he
went to Johnson’s house to ask Johnson whether he had any
information about the gunshots. After Jarrell rang Johnson’s
doorbell, Johnson opened the door and pointed a loaded AR-15 rifle
at Jarrell. Jarrell, who feared for his safety, fled to his patrol vehicle,
and Johnson dropped the rifle. Johnson then spoke with Jarrell but
told Jarrell he did not want their conversation to be recorded. As
Johnson and Jarrell spoke, Johnson called Jarrell by his first name
and several times asked Jarrell to turn off his recording device. Each
time, Jarrell informed Johnson he could not turn off the recording
device. Johnson, who was angry, visibly intoxicated, unstable on his
feet, and spoke with slurred speech, admitted to Jarrell that he had
fired an AR-15 rifle from his porch that evening while intoxicated.
Eight days after the incident, Johnson told the JQC Chief
2 Investigator that the day of the incident was a “blur” because he had
been drinking excessively, but he remembered sitting in his chair
and hearing his wife’s “chatter,” which aggravated him and caused
him to “snap.” Johnson admitted he then went to the porch and fired
multiple rounds from the rifle into the ground, and when Jarrell
came to his house in a marked patrol vehicle, he answered the door
with the loaded rifle pointed at Jarrell’s head.
On October 28, 2021, the Investigative Panel filed a consent
motion suspending Johnson pending a final determination of the
JQC’s investigation. Johnson was suspended with pay by order of
this Court on October 29, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Director
filed a four-count Formal Complaint against Johnson. Count 1
alleged Johnson, in violation of Rule 1.2 (A), “fail[ed] to act in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary.” Count 2 charged Johnson with a violation of Rule 1.2 (B)
by failing “to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of
conduct and personally observe such standards of conduct so the
integrity of the judiciary might be preserved[.]” Count 4 charged
3 Johnson with failing to respect and comply with the law in violation
of Rule 1.1.1
A formal hearing on the charges against Johnson was held on
November 16, 2022. On January 6, 2023, the Hearing Panel
submitted to this Court its Report and Recommendation in which it
concluded that the Director had proved Counts 1, 2, and 4 by clear
and convincing evidence. Although the Hearing Panel acknowledged
in its Report that all proven misconduct attributed to Johnson was
personal in that it did not occur when Johnson was exercising his
official responsibilities, it concluded that Johnson had “brought the
judicial office into disrepute with his actions,” and “restoring
Johnson to the bench would not ‘respect and honor the judicial office
as a public trust,’ nor would it ‘enhance and maintain confidence in
1 Count 3 of the Formal Complaint charged Johnson with violation of
Rule 1.3 of the CJC by lending the prestige of his office to advance his own private interests by requesting that a law enforcement officer turn off his recording device. Rule 1.3 provides: “Judges shall not lend the prestige of their office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.” Count 3 was dismissed by the Director prior to the hearing and was not considered by the Hearing Panel.
4 our legal system.’” The Hearing Panel thus issued its
recommendation that Johnson be removed from his position as Chief
Judge of the Magistrate Court of Habersham County. Five days
later, Johnson submitted, and Governor Kemp subsequently
accepted, his letter of resignation.
The matter is now before this Court, where Johnson asserts
that the Hearing Panel made several errors in its findings and
conclusions, and the Director argues that Johnson should be
“removed” from office pursuant to this Court’s authority under
Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (a) of the Georgia
Constitution of 1983 to discipline judges.2 It is unnecessary to
2 One argument raised by the Director is that although Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, the provision that authorizes us to discipline judges, provides that a “judge may be removed, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for willful misconduct” (emphasis supplied), we have authority to discipline Johnson, who is now a former judge, because JQC Rule 2 (B) (2) grants us “continuing jurisdiction over former judges.” We need not, and do not, address this argument here because the Director’s request that Johnson be removed from office was rendered moot by Johnson’s resignation. See generally Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 315 Ga. 841, 850 (885 SE2d 738) (2023) (“The [CJC] repeatedly makes clear that it governs the conduct of only judges and ‘judicial candidates[.]’”); Inquiry Concerning Judge Crawford, 310 Ga. 403, 405 (851 SE2d 572) (2020) (concluding it was unnecessary to determine whether the
5 address the arguments of either party, however, because once
Johnson’s resignation was accepted by the Governor, the Director’s
request that this Court remove Johnson from office3 became moot.4
See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3) (An appeal shall be dismissed “[w]here the
questions presented have become moot.”); Scarbrough Group v.
Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 (719 SE2d 430) (2011) (“A case is moot
evidence was sufficient to support the Hearing Panel’s conclusions because the judge resigned from office after the Hearing Panel issued its Report and Recommendation). 3 The Director’s request that Johnson be “removed,” even though he no
longer holds a judicial position, appears to derive from the Director’s interest in preventing Johnson from seeking appointment or election to another judicial position for at least seven years, as well as the Director’s assertion that the timing of Johnson’s resignation allows Johnson to “circumvent the judicial disciplinary process.” See OCGA § 15-1-13
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
316 Ga. 876 FINAL COPY
S22Z0858. INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE GERALD JOHNSON.
PER CURIAM.
This judicial discipline matter is before the Court on the Report
and Recommendation of the Hearing Panel of the Judicial
Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) and timely filed Notices of
Exceptions filed by the Director of the JQC and respondent Gerald
Johnson. The Hearing Panel recommended that Johnson be
removed from office for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 1.2 (B) of the
Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct (“CJC”). Johnson, however,
submitted his resignation to Governor Brian Kemp shortly after the
Hearing Panel filed its Report and Recommendation. Removal from
office is the only sanction the JQC seeks, and we cannot remove a
former judge from an office he no longer holds. Accordingly, we
dismiss.
According to the formal charges, which Johnson admits are true and correct, on the evening of October 18, 2021, the Habersham
County Sheriff’s Office received a call regarding multiple gunshots
fired in the residential area where Johnson lived. Travis Jarrell, the
Habersham County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant who responded to the
call, knew Johnson and knew that Johnson lived in the area, so he
went to Johnson’s house to ask Johnson whether he had any
information about the gunshots. After Jarrell rang Johnson’s
doorbell, Johnson opened the door and pointed a loaded AR-15 rifle
at Jarrell. Jarrell, who feared for his safety, fled to his patrol vehicle,
and Johnson dropped the rifle. Johnson then spoke with Jarrell but
told Jarrell he did not want their conversation to be recorded. As
Johnson and Jarrell spoke, Johnson called Jarrell by his first name
and several times asked Jarrell to turn off his recording device. Each
time, Jarrell informed Johnson he could not turn off the recording
device. Johnson, who was angry, visibly intoxicated, unstable on his
feet, and spoke with slurred speech, admitted to Jarrell that he had
fired an AR-15 rifle from his porch that evening while intoxicated.
Eight days after the incident, Johnson told the JQC Chief
2 Investigator that the day of the incident was a “blur” because he had
been drinking excessively, but he remembered sitting in his chair
and hearing his wife’s “chatter,” which aggravated him and caused
him to “snap.” Johnson admitted he then went to the porch and fired
multiple rounds from the rifle into the ground, and when Jarrell
came to his house in a marked patrol vehicle, he answered the door
with the loaded rifle pointed at Jarrell’s head.
On October 28, 2021, the Investigative Panel filed a consent
motion suspending Johnson pending a final determination of the
JQC’s investigation. Johnson was suspended with pay by order of
this Court on October 29, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Director
filed a four-count Formal Complaint against Johnson. Count 1
alleged Johnson, in violation of Rule 1.2 (A), “fail[ed] to act in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary.” Count 2 charged Johnson with a violation of Rule 1.2 (B)
by failing “to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of
conduct and personally observe such standards of conduct so the
integrity of the judiciary might be preserved[.]” Count 4 charged
3 Johnson with failing to respect and comply with the law in violation
of Rule 1.1.1
A formal hearing on the charges against Johnson was held on
November 16, 2022. On January 6, 2023, the Hearing Panel
submitted to this Court its Report and Recommendation in which it
concluded that the Director had proved Counts 1, 2, and 4 by clear
and convincing evidence. Although the Hearing Panel acknowledged
in its Report that all proven misconduct attributed to Johnson was
personal in that it did not occur when Johnson was exercising his
official responsibilities, it concluded that Johnson had “brought the
judicial office into disrepute with his actions,” and “restoring
Johnson to the bench would not ‘respect and honor the judicial office
as a public trust,’ nor would it ‘enhance and maintain confidence in
1 Count 3 of the Formal Complaint charged Johnson with violation of
Rule 1.3 of the CJC by lending the prestige of his office to advance his own private interests by requesting that a law enforcement officer turn off his recording device. Rule 1.3 provides: “Judges shall not lend the prestige of their office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.” Count 3 was dismissed by the Director prior to the hearing and was not considered by the Hearing Panel.
4 our legal system.’” The Hearing Panel thus issued its
recommendation that Johnson be removed from his position as Chief
Judge of the Magistrate Court of Habersham County. Five days
later, Johnson submitted, and Governor Kemp subsequently
accepted, his letter of resignation.
The matter is now before this Court, where Johnson asserts
that the Hearing Panel made several errors in its findings and
conclusions, and the Director argues that Johnson should be
“removed” from office pursuant to this Court’s authority under
Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (a) of the Georgia
Constitution of 1983 to discipline judges.2 It is unnecessary to
2 One argument raised by the Director is that although Article VI, Section VII, Paragraph VII (a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, the provision that authorizes us to discipline judges, provides that a “judge may be removed, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for willful misconduct” (emphasis supplied), we have authority to discipline Johnson, who is now a former judge, because JQC Rule 2 (B) (2) grants us “continuing jurisdiction over former judges.” We need not, and do not, address this argument here because the Director’s request that Johnson be removed from office was rendered moot by Johnson’s resignation. See generally Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 315 Ga. 841, 850 (885 SE2d 738) (2023) (“The [CJC] repeatedly makes clear that it governs the conduct of only judges and ‘judicial candidates[.]’”); Inquiry Concerning Judge Crawford, 310 Ga. 403, 405 (851 SE2d 572) (2020) (concluding it was unnecessary to determine whether the
5 address the arguments of either party, however, because once
Johnson’s resignation was accepted by the Governor, the Director’s
request that this Court remove Johnson from office3 became moot.4
See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3) (An appeal shall be dismissed “[w]here the
questions presented have become moot.”); Scarbrough Group v.
Worley, 290 Ga. 234, 236 (719 SE2d 430) (2011) (“A case is moot
evidence was sufficient to support the Hearing Panel’s conclusions because the judge resigned from office after the Hearing Panel issued its Report and Recommendation). 3 The Director’s request that Johnson be “removed,” even though he no
longer holds a judicial position, appears to derive from the Director’s interest in preventing Johnson from seeking appointment or election to another judicial position for at least seven years, as well as the Director’s assertion that the timing of Johnson’s resignation allows Johnson to “circumvent the judicial disciplinary process.” See OCGA § 15-1-13 (a) (“[I]f 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.”). 4 The attorney discipline process is notably different in this regard. In
bar discipline matters, lawyers who are the subject of pending disciplinary proceedings generally cannot resign from membership in the bar without the approval of this Court. See Bar Rule 1-208 (d) (“No petition for leave to resign shall be accepted if there are disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges pending against the member, or if the member is not in good standing for failure to pay child support obligations[.]”). We are able to impose this rule in attorney discipline matters because we have exclusive authority to supervise and regulate the practice of law. By contrast, we have no control over the circumstances in which public officers, including judges, vacate their office. That process is controlled by the General Assembly through statute. See generally OCGA § 45-5-1 et seq., especially OCGA § 45-5-1 (a) (2) (“All offices in the state shall be vacated . . . [b]y resignation, when accepted[.]”).
6 when its resolution would amount to the determination of an
abstract question not arising upon existing facts or rights.”)
(citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted). This matter is,
therefore, dismissed.5
Dismissed. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.
Decided August 16, 2023.
Judicial discipline.
Courtney M. Veal, for Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Cathey & Strain, Dennis T. Cathey, for Johnson.
5 Our dismissal is without prejudice to the JQC reinstating charges against Johnson in the event he becomes a judge or judicial candidate in the future. This Court is not aware of any applicable statute of limitation or doctrine of estoppel that would prevent the JQC from revisiting any of the misconduct alleged in Count 1, 2, or 4 of the Formal Complaint should Johnson again become a judge or judicial candidate because there has not been a final disposition of those charges on the merits.