continued from page Middle Judicial ….

continued from page

Middle Judicial Circuit Supreme Court Judge Robert Reeves on November 16, 2022, listing 58 counts of alleged misconduct based on complaints by attorneys and others that the Judge made derogatory remarks in the courtroom, engaged in sexual harassment, and made inappropriate use of his title.

The JQC’s Investigative Panel concluded that “Formal Charges should be filed for the purpose of determining whether Judge Reeves has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if so, whether he has committed willful misconduct in office, exhibited habitual intemperance, and whether his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice such that it brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Charles Boring, Director of the JQC, who filed the notice of formal charges, requested that proceedings be instituted for the purpose of determining whether Judge Reeve’s conduct constitutes violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if so, the appropriate discipline.

Judge Reeves was formally notified of the alleged misconduct and required to file a verified answer to these charges with the Clerk of the Georgia Supreme Court and to serve a copy to Director Boring within 30 days of notification of the charges. “Failure to answer the formal charges shall constitute an admission of the factual allegations pursuant to JQC Rule 21 (A),” according to the JQC document regarding the inquiry.

In the 60-page JQC document, several narratives of Reeves’ alleged misuse of authority are reported in a variety of situations, each divided by the nature of the offense, such as “Improper and Intemperate Comments,” “Gender- Based Improper Comments,” “Alleged Improper Contact with Court Personnel,” and the fundraising and promotion for an advocacy center that deals with cases within Reeves’s jurisdiction.

According to the Supreme Court of Georgia records, Reeves filed a motion to dismiss charges on May 15, 2023, citing that the Constitutional principles used as a basis for the charges are inapplicable to the situations referenced. In this document, Reeves explained that the Commission stated that the presence of “habitual intemperance” and “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” within the judge’s actions, which were reported through formal complaints, are irrelevant to the current investigation and should therefore not be used to determine whether further corrective action is necessary.

According to the Georgia Constitution, the Judicial Qualifications Commission holds “the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of judges” on the basis of “willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform the duties of office, habitual intemperance, conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude, or for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Though the Commission does not define what “habitual intemperance” is through any of its official documents, the Georgia Code of Law associates the term “intemperance” with drunkenness throughout various occupations other than the law. In the document filed on May 15, 2023, Reeves argued that the Commission had confused the term “intemperance” with “intemperate,” and further stated, “Throughout the Georgia Code where intemperance justifies professional discipline in other occupations, the Legislature and state agency regulators have consistently declared its clear meaning to constitute repeated public intoxication.”

He further emphasized that this meaning did not apply to spoken words, which is what the evidence supplied through the formal complaints and received by the Commission had been associated with, and therefore are inapplicable to the charges. Because of this inapplicability, Reeves stated that the authority to discipline him based on “habitual intemperance” should be dismissed as a matter of law.

In addition to this, the Judge explained that most of the counts – 43 of the 58 – which were filed with the proposed violation of “willful misconduct in office” could not be used to permit professional discipline by the Commission because of the referenced actions not taking place in a judicial capacity. As Reeves cited in the document, the conduct discussed in the formal charges took place in various settings, such as in private conversations aside from Reeves’s judicial duties within the courtroom and through online live streams, separating them from the legal umbrella of the violation. He stated that the authorizing provision for these specific counts should be dismissed as a matter of law.

Judicial Qualifications Commission ( JQC) Director Courtney Veal denied Judge Reeves’s motion on June 12, 2023.

Veal stated that “because the allegations contained in the formal charges, when taken as true, constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and warrant discipline pursuant to Georgia Constitution Article VI, Subsection VII, Paragraph VII (a), [Reeves’s] motion should be denied.” She went on to further discuss Reeves’s reasons that he should be denied, citing the relevant laws to each matter.

According to both parties, the Georgia Constitution provides the Commission with “the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of judges” on the basis of “willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform the duties of office, habitual intemperance, conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude, or for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Regarding Reeves’s argument about the definition of habitual temperance, Veal responded, “Contrary to [Reeves’s] assertion that the JQC’s Investigative Panel is confused about the meaning of ‘habitual intemperance,’ the term is discussed within Georgia’s judicial disciplinary precedent and clearly defines judicial conduct such as ‘yelling, vulgar language, or improper physical contact. As such, [Reeves’s] violations constitute habitual intemperance as defined within Georgia’s judicial disciplinary precedent (and not obscure, inapplicable disciplinary precedent for contractors, plumbers, or doctors that overindulge in ‘alcoholic spirits, narcotics, or stimulants’) and present a Constitutionally organized ground for judicial

discipline.” Next, Veal addressed the motion to dismiss the formal charges regarding “willful misconduct in office.” Responding to Reeves’s claims that the conduct discussed in the formal charges took place in various settings, such as in private conversations aside from his judicial duties within the courtroom and through online live streams, and should therefore be separated from the legal umbrella of the violation, Veal said these incidents involved Reeves “acting outside his judicial capacity” and acting in ways which are “unjudicial and harmful to the public’s esteem of the judiciary,” and constituted authorized ground for judicial discipline.

All 58 charges will be discussed in the hearing in June to determine if any misconduct truly occurred, and if further disciplinary action is needed.