By: Randy Evans
Earlier this year, Gov. Nathan Deal appointed Richard Hyde to the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission. He attended his first meeting as a Commissioner on April 18. Judges throughout Georgia took notice. Georgians should too.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission, established by Constitutional Amendment in 1972, is the state agency charged with investigating and disciplining Georgia’s judges for alleged misconduct. (It is not to be confused with the Georgia Judicial Nominating Commission, which recommends attorneys for appointment as a judge where a legal degree is required for a judgeship.)
The Judicial Qualifications Commission has seven members — three attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Georgia (often former presidents of the State Bar of Georgia); two judges appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court (although often the choice of the chief justice); and two members appointed by the governor. The governor’s appointments cannot be members of the State Bar.
For decades, the Judicial Qualifications Commission did little. As a result, Georgia’s judiciary operated largely unchecked. But, during the past several years, the Commission has been a busy watchdog group.
Although it can only “recommend” disciplinary action against a judge, the Commission has dramatically impacted Georgia’s judiciary. Many judges have either resigned or been removed as a result of investigations by the Commission, and for good reason.
Indeed, average Georgians have been shocked as the details of the misconduct have emerged — sometimes on the national stage in special news reports. These resignations and related stories have reflected poorly on the judiciary, and more importantly, on Georgia itself. At times, these cases involved judges having inappropriate personal relationships with lawyers appearing before them; disregard for the rules of conduct; bias and conflict of interest; mental instability and incapacity; abuse of power; and corruption.
As the Commission has increased its activity, complaints against judges and about various judges’ ethics have also risen steadily. In large part, these changes are the result of increased public awareness of the Commission and the degree to which it has in recent years responded to complaints. Many complaints are against one of the 205 Georgia superior court judges, including some of the state’s 49 chief judges. (Notably, in one short period last year, three chief judges resigned as a result of Judicial Qualification Commission’s investigations into inappropriate behavior.)
Other complaints have been filed against magistrate judges, probate judges, municipal or recorder’s court judges, state court judges, juvenile court judges, administrative law judges and judicial candidates.
According to the Commission, most of the complaints involve allegations of conflict of interest, bias, ex-parte communications, failure to complete mandatory training and failure to follow the law. (While most Georgians believe that all Georgia judges are lawyers and have a deep understanding of the law, many magistrate and probate judges throughout the state are only required to have a high school diploma, which presents special challenges to having a reliable and qualified statewide judiciary.)
Notably, the majority of judicial complaints are dismissed as without merit and without any public comment or mention. But, as the resignations and disciplines imposed reveal, Georgia has some bad judges, and it is the Commission’s job to find, investigate and address them. It is a critically important job. Judges directly impact Georgians’ lives, liberties and property.
Indirectly, a corrupt or incompetent judiciary translates into a weak business environment. Businesses know the states where the rule of law is strong and supported by strong judges committed to enforcing the law, and importantly abiding by the law. Businesses also know the states where that is not the case.
The majority of Georgia judges are among the best in the world. Indeed, Gov. Deal has appointed many outstanding judges in only two years in office. Yet, not surprisingly, it is the few bad judges that make the headlines with unsavory conduct that harms Georgia’s reputation as a good place to do business.
That is where Richard Hyde has come into play. Prior to his appointment, Richard Hydewas the lead investigator for the Commission. In that capacity, he was responsible for investigating and participating in the prosecution of judges who violate the rules. He did it well — so well that he earned the “Newsmaker of the Year” award in 2010 for his work in investigating Georgia judges.
While some judges will be troubled by Richard Hyde’s elevation from investigator to commissioner, his appointment is actually just one more step toward improving the ethics and accountability of Georgia’s judiciary.
Good judges have nothing to fear. Bad judges have no place to hide — of course the pun was intended. Judicial ethics in Georgia has taken another big step forward.