Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Georgia announced that opinions will issue on several cases on Monday, including the JQC action into Judge Kenneth Fowler and a set of attorney discipline cases. A list of cases can be found here. Speaking of Judges Gone Wild, some details of Johnnie Caldwell's undoing can be found here. Mr. Caldwell's resigned his position amidst a JQC investigation, apparently into his conduct in the Crook v. Crook case and a female attorney for one of the parties. This has been a particularly busy year for JQC. Are judges acting worse than ever or are they being scrutinized more than ever?
What might be the appellate implications? I argued a case to the Supreme Court a few weeks ago that had been tried by Mr. Caldwell. I named him at the beginning of the argument rather than simply referring to him as "the court below" or "the trial court." The standard of review on appeal is typically deferential. Appellate courts typically will not reverse a judge's finding of fact unless there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the Court has "abused its discretion." The Supreme Court and JQC taking more judges to task than in recent memory, is it time to revise our standards of review. After all, to what extent do we defer to some judges? Perhaps not so much, which was the point I made by naming the Court on that case. A man like Mr. Caldwell should perhaps be subject to de novo review.
Comments