IJ" II
'J~OO
.Pl G-4-
2-h/3
Vol. 26 No. 3 March 1999
Courts JOURNAL
Judicial Council recommends two new judgeships and circuit division; pilot project approved
At its December 11 meeting, the Judicial Council recommended creation of a fourth superior court judgeship in the Northeastern Judicial Circuit and a third judgeship in the Southwestern Judicial Circuit. At press time, bills to create these judgeships, HB 292 (Southwestern Judicial Circuit) and HB 397 (Northeastern Judicial Circuit), were under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee.
The Judicial Council also voted to recommend division of the Flint
See Judicial Council meeting, page 4
fudge Walter C. McMillan Jr. (left) and Judge John E. Girardeau consider requests for new judgeships.
State ofthe Judiciary
Chief Justice Robert Benham addresses 1999 General Assembly
Chief Justice Robert Benham made his fourth State of the Judiciary Address to the Georgia General Assembly on January 14, 1999. His remarks follow.
Lieutenant Governor Taylor, Speaker Murphy, the members and officers of the House and the Senate, my colleagues on the Supreme Court, my colleagues on the Court of Appeals, members of the judiciary, my many friends and well-wishers, it's a high honor and a real privilege to be able to address a joint session of the legislature.
This is the fourth time that I've had this opportunity to address a joint session as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We come today to thank you for your many years of support of the judicial branch of government and your dedication to improving the quality of life for all Georgians. We have also come to celebrate the accomplishments of the judicial branch of government.
Gratitude
We appreciate the leadership that See State of the Judicary, page 18
George Lange Ill welcomed as new AOC director
George Lange III is the new director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Mr. Lange comes to the AOC after two years as circuit executive for the Second Federal Judicial Circuit in New York City. His many innovations to that court include videoconferencing, automated case-management, and CD-ROM brief submissions.
Looking to the future of the AOC, Mr. Lange says that "In the short term, we want to examine our roles and missions to make sure that we are properly structured along functional lines, and that we understand what our longterm and strategic mission is. We're going to do that in reasonably short order-four to six months."
See George Lange III, page 7
Inside
Court of Appeals ceremonies ............... 3 News from the JQC ........................................ 4 Report on prose litigation ...................... 5 TechnologyTalk ............................................... 6 Election results ................................................... 8 Key to caseload data .................................... 9 Judicial Council policy ............................. 10 Costs of a new judgeship ........................ 16 Domestic violence grants ..................... 21 Superior court judges sworn in ........ 21
In Brief ...
Superior Court appointment
Judge Michael L. Murphy was appointed to the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit bench for the term December 3, 1998, through December 31, 2000. (See photo, page 21.)
Supreme Court re-elects chief justice and presiding justice, amends terms
The Supreme Court of Georgia has amended the length of terms for its chief justice and presiding justice. According to the January 11 Supreme Court Order, officers will serve a term of two years, rather than four. The order allows a second, consecutive two-year term. Accordingly, the court elected Chief Justice Robert Benham and Presiding Justice Norman Fletcher to second terms beginning July 1, 1999, and ending June 30, 2001.
Liberty County clerk elected president of COAG ...
Superior Court Clerk F. Barry Wilkes of Liberty County has been elected to a one-year term as president of the County Officers Association of Georgia (COAG). COAG's membership is comprised of the four groups of elected constitutional county officers: superior court clerks, probate court judges, tax commissioners and sheriffs.
... and Newton County clerk named 1998 County Officer of the Year of Georgia
Linda Hays was named 1998 County Officer of the Year at COAG's annual awards and installation banquet in Savannah. Recipients of this award are selected by a majority of COAG's 636 members. The Newton County clerk of superior court was recognized for her outstanding contributions to the association and service to her local constituents. Ms. Hays is currently president of the Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia.
Substance Abuse director appointed to Governor's Advisory Council
In December 1998, Gov. Miller appointed Sandy L. Ward, director of the Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts, to serve as a member of the Governor's Advisory Council for Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse.
Project coordinator named for Georgia Deprivation Mediation Pilot Project
Pamela Johnson has been named project coordinator of the new Georgia Deprivation Mediation Pilot Project, a collaboration between the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution and the Supreme Court Child Placement Project. Studies will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of mediation in resolving parental rights issues, visitation and other issues in the permanent placement of adoptive and foster children. The pilot sites are the juvenile courts of Cobb, Clayton, Fulton and DeKalb counties.
Areminder-
Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund payments are due monthly
OCGA 15-21-140 requires superior, state and municipal courts to add additional penalties to fines for offenses involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OCGA 40-6-391). The requirements became effective on January 1 and will endow the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund. The monthly payment of funds collected by the courts should be sent to Louise Moody, Department of Human Resources, Office of Financial Services, 2 Peachtree Street, Suite 27-295, Atlanta, GA 30303-3142. Phone: 404-656-4319. Checks should be made to the Department of Human Resources and designated for the Spinal Injury Trust Fund.
Electronic mailing list lets records management community share ideas and information
"GaHistory" is an electronic mailing list created for Georgia's public records management community. Court clerks and other officials responsible for the care and maintenance of public records can use the mailing list to ask questions, seek advice, post job openings, share experiences and announce workshops. The list is a component of the Records and Information Management Services Program of the Georgia Department of Archives and History. To subscribe, send e-mail to listserv@list.sos.state. ga.us. In the message field enter: subscribe GApublicrecords Your Name. Do not enter any text in the subject line and remove auto signature if present. Then send the e-mail.
See page 8 for a list of newly elected judges and court personnel.
Georgia Courts Journal
2
March 1999
Court of Appeals of Georgia News from the JQC
Director Earle B. May Jr. to retire
ChiefJudge Edward H. Johnson sworn in
Court of Appeals Judge Edward H. Johnson became the court's 19th chief judge in ceremonies on December 16. He was elected to a two-year term, succeeding Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews. Reverend Lee Fullerton of Oxford, Georgia, held Judge Johnson's Bible as Gov. Miller administered the oath of office.
Judge Johnson is a native Georgian born in Newnan. Before joining the appellate court in 1992, he served on the superior court bench in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit and on the state court bench in Fulton County. He was a state senator from 1977 to 1980.
Judge Johnson holds B.A. and M.A. degrees from Georgia State University, a J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law, and an LL.M. degree fro:n the University of Virginia School of Law. ti;;
Earle B. May Jr., director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission since 1992, has announced his retirement, effective June 30. Mr. May says that he is ready to "relax and enjoy life." When he took the job, Mr. May had already practiced law for 40 years and intended to serve as the commission's director for no more than four years. Those four years stretched to seven, however, and now he feels it is time to travel with his wife and pay visits to his children and grandchildren.
U.S. District Court Judge Hugh Lawson, a former member of the commission, praises Mr. May's tenure as director, saying that "Mr. May saw the Judicial Qualifications Commission through its adolescence and into maturity as an effective and respected arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia." Judge Lawson describes Mr. May as a "professional of the first rank and a learned lawyer with outstanding judgment and common sense."
Newest judge, Anne Elizabeth Barnes, takes office
Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes, pictured above, was elected to the Court of Appeals of Georgia in November. She was sworn in by Chief Justice Robert Benham on January 6 in the Court of Appeals courtroom. She was accompanied at the podium by her husband, W. Fred Orr IL Judge Barnes, a DeKalb County native, received her B.A. degree from Georgia State University and her law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. She is a member of the Atlanta Bar Association, American Bar Association, Georgia Association for Women Lawyers, and Lawyers Club of Atlanta and was a vice president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. ti;;
Appointments
Attorney Gary C. Christy of Cordele has been appointed by the State Bar of Georgia to serve on the Judicial Qualifications Commission. His four-year term began on January 1. Mr. Christy fills the seat vacated by John E. James, who had served on the commission for eight years.
Superior Court Judge Steven C. Jones of the Western Judicial Circuit was re-appointed to the commission by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Atlanta attorney Jerry B. Blackstock has been elected chairperson, succeeding Mr. James. Judge Alice D. Bonner of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit is vice chairperson. ti;;
March 1999
3
Georgia Courts Journal
Judicial Council meeting continued from page 1
Judicial Circuit. SB 117 creates the Towaliga Judicial Circuit consisting of Henry County, leaving Butts, Lamar and Monroe counties to make up the Flint Judicial Circuit. (For a list of the costs of new judgeships and circuit divisions, see page 16.)
Bell-Forsyth pilot project
The Bell-Forsyth Judicial Circuit sought and received the council's approval for a trial court unification pilot project. The project has two objectives: 1) to create a unified trial court in the circuit using judicial resources from the existing superior, state and juvenile courts and 2) to develop a family court division based on the "one family, one judge" principle. Family court caseload will include all domestic relations cases currently filed, all juvenile cases currently filed, and some misdemeanor offenses involving family violence filed in the state court. Civil and criminal divisions will be part of the unified court. The pilot court will operate for three years. Funding will come from existing budgets of the courts involved. In addition, the project
will request $40,000 in county funds and $53,944 in state funds. The bill to create the unified court, HB 486, has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
New members welcomed
The council welcomed the following new members:
Judge Joe C. Bishop (Pataula Judicial Circuit), president-elect, Council of Superior Court Judges, replaces Judge George F. Nunn Jr.
Judge Joe C. Bishop of the Pataula Circuit consults with Judge Richard S. Gault of the BellForsyth Circuit.
During the December Judicial Council meeting, Judge A.J. "Buddy" Welch Jr. (right), presented Chief Justice Robert Benham with a resolution from the Council of Juvenile Court Judges praising his commitment to children's issues, especially to improving procedures for abuse and neglect cases. The resolution says the chief justice "has, through his own work, exemplified his understanding of, and respect for, the difficult and important work of juvenile court judges of the state of Georgia."
Judge William T. Boyett (Conasauga Judicial Circuit), Seventh District Administrative Judge, replaces Judge Dorothy A. Robinson.
Judge Orion L. Douglass (Glynn County), president-elect, Council of State Court Judges, replaces Judge Howard Cook.
Judge Joseph Iannazzone (Gwinnett County), president-elect, Council of Magistrate Court Judges, replaces Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh.
Judge H. Arthur Mclane (Southern Judicial Circuit), Second District Administrative Judge, replaces Judge A. Wallace Cato.
Judge Walter C. McMillan Jr. (Middle Judicial Circuit), Eighth District Administrative Judge, replaces Judge William W. Towson Sr.
Judge T. Penn McWhorter (Piedmont Judicial Circuit), Tenth District Administrative Judge, replaces E. Purnell Davis II.
Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore (Atlanta Judicial Circuit), Fifth District Administrative Judge, replaces Judge Philip F. Etheridge. ~
Georgia Courts Journal
4
March 1999
Committee finds prose litigation on the rise in Georgia, suggests responses
No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person's own cause in any of the courts of this state.
Georgia Constitution, Art. I, 1, 'J[12
The Pro Se Litigation Committee presented its final report at the December meeting of the Judicial Council. Judge H. Gibbs Flanders Jr., chair of the committee, explained the committee's task: "First, we tried to determine the extent of pro se litigation in Georgia at this time, and specifically what areas have the greatest amount of activity. Secondly, we tried to determine how the courts can best respond to the needs of pro se litigants and make sure they have a fair day in court and have access to the courts to the greatest degree possible."
The 14-member committee appointed by the Judicial Council began its work in June 1998. The committee focused its work on those civil actions in which citizens most often represent themselves-domestic relations cases, small claims, landlord/tenant disputes, garnishments, contempt actions, liens and probate.
Where prose representation occurs
The committee surveyed judges and court clerks, asking about the kinds of cases in which pro se representation occurs. Although the figures reported are not conclusive, the survey revealed the following information:
In superior courts, the estimated frequency of pro se representation is 2% to 20% of cases filed, most commonly in divorce and family violence cases.
In state courts, the estimated frequency is 1% to 65%; the most com-
mon case types are dispossessories, contracts and collections.
In probate courts, the estimated frequency is 5% to 98%; the most common types of cases are guardianships, administration, year's support and petitions to encroach.
In magistrate courts, the estimated frequency is 5% to 98%; the most common types of cases are dispossessories, contracts, small claims and garnishments.
The report recommends that local courts begin collecting their own information. In addition, a statewide case-reporting system should be created to track pro se filings.
Pro se cases often require more processing time through the court system due to the litigant's lack of knowledge and experience. The report suggests screening cases to identify pro se cases early and offering alternative dispute resolution services, assistance to insure that pleadings are complete, and/or referrals to the proper resources.
Is prose litigation increasing?
Georgia appears to be experiencing an increase in pro se litigation. The trend is not uniform throughout the state, however. Urban areas have a greater number of prose litigants, but rural areas have acute needs as well, due to the lack of legal resources. One reason for the increase may be the perception that lawyers are too expensive. In addition, legal information and forms in consumer guides and self-help books and over the Internet are increasingly available.
To help track this trend, the report recommends that prose litigants routinely be asked to complete questionnaires about reasons for self representation and treatment by the court.
Possible responses
The report suggests initiatives to assist pro se litigants, judicial and court personnel, and attorneys.
With regard to prose litigants, standard forms and instructions should be developed, along with user-friendly instructions. Assistance in filing forms should be provided, perhaps by the establishment of self-help centers in larger jurisdictions.
The concerns of judicial and court personnel should be addressed by developing protocols and policies in coordination with trial judges' councils and the Council of Superior Court Clerks. These protocols should be included in manuals, benchbooks and regular training, and might contain specific examples of proper information versus improper legal advice and/or sample dialogues for proceedings in pro se cases.
The State Bar of Georgia should coordinate a statewide network to link attorneys with limited-income clients. The State Bar committee that formulates disciplinary rules should develop rules and guidelines for the "unbundling" of legal services and consider allowing attorneys to be used in only selected portions of legal proceedings. The State Bar should also develop continuing legal education programs focusing on assisting prose litigants.
Future efforts
Following Judge Flander's presentation, members of the Judicial Council voted to create an implementation committee to continue gathering information on pro se issues.
For a copy of the report, contact Holly Sparrow at the AOC (404-6565171). ~
March 1999
5
Georgia Courts Journal
Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . ..
Statewide database of property transactions cuts the paper chase and standardizes title information
Title searching just got easier in Georgia thanks to a statewide database that puts property information online-a boon for the real estate community, banks and the public.
Approximately 1.5 million property deeds are filed in Georgia each year. Up to now, counties have used many different systems to index these documents, making title searches time-consuming and sometimes frustrating. "If you wanted title information before, you had to travel to the courthouse to search the deed index. This system will save a lot of time behind the windshield," says David Williams, execu-
tive direcfor of the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority, the project's sponsor. "Banks were taking it on faith that land was free and clear when they issued a loan," Mr. Williams says. "Now it will be easy to do a statewide search to see who owns land and if there are any liens."
The project was mandated by the Georgia General Assembly in 1995 and became operative in January 1999. Costs for the system are covered by a $5 increase in the deed filing fee, which now totals $10.
The database contains an index of all property transactions, including
the name of the seller and buyer, location of property, any liens on the property and the book and page where the actual deed is filed in the county.
The index can be searched free of charge at county courthouses or via the Internet for a $25 subscription fee.
Standards and guidelines
"Georgia is taking a leadership role with this project," says John Myers, project director and director of Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute Center for Public
Continued next page
A 11Year 2000" reminder from the Georgia Courts Automation Commission
By Donald Forbes, director of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission
The year 2000 is coming, and people are talking about how their computers will perform when it gets here. It is essential for the courts to determine how our electronic systems will react prior to January 1, 2000.
What is the "Y2K Problem"?
In the past, when writing computer code, many programmers used only two digits to represent the year. The year 1955 is represented as "55," 1998 as "98," etc. When we reach the year 2000, problems may surface:
Some software programs will fail, because built-in commands tell the computer that dates must fall within a range of 01-99.
Other programs insert "19" in front of any year. A letter written
January 1, 2000, will be dated January 1, 1900, instead.
Programs may show 00 as the year so that sorting a list according to dates may result in something like this:
Last actions to this account: 01/05/00 - bill sent 12/20/99 - services rendered (It appears that the bill was sent before the services were rendered.) Other dates may vary, as some manufacturers are inserting either "19" or "20" before the last two digits of the year, depending upon certain circumstances. For example, if you enter a number less than "49," a "20" is automatically inserted. If the number is greater than "50," a "19" is inserted.
What can you do?
Test your computers to see how
they react. Make a back-up of your system, and then reset the date to sometime in January 2000. Complete a few tasks and see what dates turn up. If your entries, reports and results are accurate, your system may be adequately prepared for the year 2000. If you have questions or problems, contact the county technology department, local vendor, equipment manufacturer or software vendor. The Georgia Courts Automation Commission is also available (404651-6328) for help. You should complete testing as soon as possible, to allow time to address any problems. You may need to budget more funds for upgrades and purchases, or allow time for software to be modified.
Don't let the Bug bite your court! Be ready for Y2K. t:?;;
Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . ..
Georgia Courts Journal
6
March 1999
... Technology Talk . ..
Property database continued
Buildings. He notes that few states have a such a program.
Developing the real estate database was an extremely complex project. "You have 159 counties doing business different ways," Mr. Meyer says. "There are a wide range of technologies ... some counties are very sophisticated, some aren't automated at all." Some counties handle the indexing of deeds themselves, and others hire an outside vendor.
Discrepancies as to how Georgia counties enter information in their deed indexes was an initial stumbling block. One of the first tasks was the development of statewide standards for data entry. Without standards, a name can be entered any number of ways, severely handicapping the accuracy and reliability of information searches.
"This database should offer clerks greater peace of mind," says Mr. Williams. "Serving as custodians of state records is an important role ... you want to make sure you're doing it right. Now, for the first time, they'll have statewide guidelines."
Looking forward On January 1, counties became
responsible for filing real estate transactions daily. Index records sent to a centralized location in Atlanta are checked for errors and then either sent back for corrections or merged into the central index. Although the actual property deeds remain in county courthouses, plans are to scan their images into the system. This would enable counties to easily provide a hard copy of the record. Deeds processed from 1996 through 1998 will also be entered into the database. tr:,
... Technology Talk . ..
George Lange Ill named AOC director continued from page 1
In the long term, the AOC's mis-
Mr. Lange has also served as clerk
sion will be grounded in service and of court for the Second Circuit
support, Mr. Lange says. Though he Court of Appeals and for the U.S.
has been here only a short time, he
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Ser-
says that "I know enough to know
vice, and as special assistant to
that the role of the AOC is to sup-
Chief Judge Morey Sear of the U.S.
port the judges on the bench, the
District Court for the Eastern Dis-
clerks of court and the court admin- trict of Louisiana. Prior to his tenure
istrators who are getting the job
with the federal courts, Mr. Lange
done on a daily basis."
served on active duty as a judge
He plans to travel extensively in
advocate with the U.S. Marine
the next year, meeting with judges
Corps from 1966 to 1992.
and court administrators across the
He received his B.A. degree from
state. His goal is
Louisiana State
to "reaffirm the
University, his
service role of the
J.D. from Loyola
AOC and the
School of Law,
credibility of the
and his LL.M.
AOC." He wants
(equivalent) from
the AOC's goals
the Army Post-
and agendas to
Graduate School
be "up-front and
at the University
clearly stated."
of Virginia. Mr.
Mr. Lange
Lange recently
moved from the
completed the
federal to state
Court Executive
court system due
Development
in part to the dif-
Program of the
ferent opportuni-
National Center
ties presented at
George Lange III
for State Courts
the state level. "The range of issues
and was designated a Fellow of the
and challenges in judicial adminis-
Institute for Court Management.
tration are much broader at the state
The AOC director position be-
level," he explains. "There's a rich-
came vacant following the resig-
ness and immediacy that you don't
nation of Robert L. Doss Jr. last
find to the same degree at the fed-
summer. In the interim, Hulett H.
eral level." He chose to pursue the
Askew has served as director. "I'm
opportunity in Georgia after re-
very grateful to receive an organiza-
search convinced him that "Georgia tion that has clearly been under the
has a first-rate judicial system and
good stewardship of the interim
innovative court administrators. As director Bucky Askew and before
the director, I have the potential to
him the long-term guidance and
play a meaningful role."
leadership of Mr. Robert Doss,"
Another factor was a desire to
Mr. Lange says of his predecessors.
return to the South. Mr. Lange, a
Mr. Lange called the AOC staff
native of Louisiana, says he and his
"dedicated professionals who
wife have always loved the area.
clearly want to make a contribution
"People have always been very
to the administration of justice in
warm and friendly," he says, "and
Georgia and who sincerely want to
we like southern culture and cus-
make a difference." He is pleased,
toms and traditions. What better
he says, to have a staff foundation
place than here in Georgia?"
"on which to build and grow." tr:,
March 1999
7
Georgia Courts Journal
........,,. Newly elected judges take office ........,,.
The following new judges, district attorneys, solicitorsgeneral and superior court clerks were elected for the term January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2002 (unless otherwise indicated). You may wish to note these changes in your Georgia Courts Directory.
Court of Appeals
Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes
Superior Courts
Judges
Augusta Judicial Circuit
Judge Duncan D. Wheale
Clayton Judicial Circuit
Judge Albert B. Collier
Griffin Judicial Circuit
Judge Christopher C. Edwards
Gwinnett Judicial Circuit
Judge Debra K. Turner
Mountain Judicial Circuit
Judge James E. Cornwell
Rockdale Judicial Circuit
Judge David B. Irwin
District Attorneys
Atlantic Judicial Circuit
Tom Durden
Cobb Judicial Circuit
Patrick H. Head
Enotah Judicial Circuit
Stan Gunter
Rockdale Judicial Circuit
Richard R. Read
State Courts
Judges
Baldwin County
Judge Alan W. Thrower
Bibb County
Judge William Patrick Adams
DeKalb County
Judge Alvin T. Wong
Gwinnett County
Judge R. Timothy Hamil
Henry County
Judge Benjamin W. Studdard III
Jenkins County
Judge R.H. Reeves III
Pierce County
Judge Franklin D. Rozier Jr.
This information was compiled by the Office of the Secretary of State.
Solicitors-General
DeKalb County
Gwendolyn R. Keyes
Effingham County
Danny Price
Henry County
John T. Rutherford
Houston County
A. Robert Tawse Jr.
Jenkins County
Troy A. Gay
Long County
Robert F. Pirkle
Pierce County
Dan Bennett Jr.
Probate Courts
(Elected for term Nov. 4, 1998, through Dec. 31, 2000.)
Baldwin County
Judge Todd Blackwell
Harris County
Judge Martha M. Hartley
Meriwether County
Judge Stiles Allen Estes
Monroe County
Judge Karen Pitman
Mitchell County
Judge Susan Taylor (Judge Taylor was appointed following the death of Judge Janice Williams.)
Muscogee County
Judge Julia Willcox Lumpkin
Richmond County
Judge Isaac Jolles
Webster County
Judge Lorene W. Tindol
Magistrate Courts
(Chief Magistrates)
Appling County
Judge Donald Weston Sears
Barrow County
Judge Randy B. Turner
Hancock County
Judge Shirley Rhodes Ingram
Superior Court Clerks
(Elected for term Jan. 1, 1999, through Dec. 31, 2000.)
Douglas County
Cindy W. Chapin
Sumter County
Nancy C. Smith
Georgia Courts Journal
8
March 1999
Mark your calendar:
New judgeship, circuit split and pilot project deadlines are approaching
April 1-Judgeship, circuit split requests At its June 1998 meeting, the Judicial Council voted to begin the court
system's annual case count earlier in the year than has been done in the past. Under this schedule, a circuit seeking a new judgeship or boundary change must submit its request in writing to the Judicial Council by April 1, prior to the session of the General Assembly during which the judgeship or boundary change will be sought.
June 1-Pilot project requests Courts interested in establishing experimental court projects of non-
uniform jurisdiction must submit a request in writing to the chairperson of the Judicial Council, Chief Justice Robert Benham. The deadline is June 1 prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly during which the experimental project legislation will be considered. The request can be made by the chief judge of one of the affected courts, the governor, a member of the General Assembly, or the governing authority of an affected county. The proposal must conform to Judicial Council policy.
For more information, contact Holly Sparrow at the AOC (404-656-5171). ~
Updated "Guide to Georgia Courts" now available
A revised and updated version of the "Guide to Georgia Courts" is available from theAOC. The attractive brochure provides a detailed summary of appellate and trial court jurisdiction. A schematic diagram shows the organizational structure of the state, county and local court systems with appellate routes. To request copies, contact Nancy Pevey at the AOC (404-656-5171). ~
Key to the caseload data chart: calendar year 1997
The chart on the following pages shows caseload data for each of Georgia's 47 superior court judicial circuits. Data are grouped by filing type: civil, criminal, and juvenile, and more specifically by case type: general civil, domestic relations, felony, misdemeanor and probation revocations.
About the caseload data chart Filings per judge are calculated
so that each circuit's workload is compared on an equal basis. The number of filings per judge is the total number of filings for the circuit divided by the total number of judges authorized by the General Assembly for that circuit. Shaded areas indicate circuits requesting an additional judgeship. Boldface numbers indicate figures exceeding the threshold
caseload per judge on either the delphi weighted or ratio weighted method. Mean figures for all circuits are shown at the bottom of the columns. Rank is the position of the individual circuit as compared to that of other circuits. Under % Change, a noticeable change in superior court filings per judge may occur. Presence of courts of limited jurisdiction within a circuit may decrease or increase filings in the superior court. Numbers also vary if a new judgeship was created in the five-year period shown. Population figures are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 1996 estimated census figures for county population. Two systems, the delphi weighted caseload and ratio weighted caseload, are used to
analyze workload per judge. The delphi system applies
an estimated amount of time required for hearing various case types to each circuit's caseload filings. To qualify for an additional judgeship, the delphi value should exceed the present number of judges in the circuit. For example, if a circuit has two judges and the delphi value is greater than 2, the workload warrants consideration for an additional judgeship. The ratio weight represents caseload in terms of amount of time needed to bring a case to completion compared with time taken to try a typical felony case. Filings of all case types are converted to felony equivalents for comparison. When a circuit passes the 1,500 felony-case equivalent threshold, another judgeship may be considered. ~
March 1999
9
Georgia Courts Journal
Judicial Council policy for judgeship, circuit boundary studies
Initiation Recommendations to the governor and the
General Assembly for judicial personnel allocations forthe superior courts shall be made annually prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly. Studies by the Administrative Office ofthe Courts ofthe need forjudgeships or ofthe need for changes in circuit boundaries may be authorized by the Judicial Council upon the request of the governor, members of the General Assembly, or by ajudgeofthe county or counties affected. Such requests shall be submitted in writing by April 1, prior to the session of the General Assembly during which the judgeship or change in circuit boundaries is sought. Any judge who intends to make a request for a study must notify the Judicial Council of any special circumstances or data of the courts involved in the request by April 1 so that these special circumstances may be investigated during the studies conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (Rev. 6-7-98)
Purpose The Judicial Council seeks to achieve a bal-
anced and equitable distribution of caseload among thejudges ofthe state to promote speedy and just dispositions of citizens' cases. The Judicial Council recognizes that the addition of a judgeship is a matter of great gravity and substantial expense to the counties and the state and should be approached through careful inquiry and deliberate study before action is taken. (10/27/81)
Policy Statements The Judicial Council will recommend the cre-
ation of additional judgeships or changes in circuit boundaries based only upon needs demonstrated through comparative, objective studies. The Judicial Council will not recommend the addition of ajudgeship not requested by the circuit under study unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an additional judgeship is needed. (10/27/81)
As a matter of policy, the Judicial Council recommends that no new part-time judgeship be created. (10/27/81)
Because ofthe advantages of multi-judge circuits, the Judicial Council generally will not recommend the creation of additional circuits. (10/27/81)
Judgeships 1. Part-time judgeships
As a general rule, part-time judgeships are not an effective method ofhandlingjudicial workload. The disadvantages of part-time judgeships are many; a few specific ones are:
a. The cost of training a part-time judge is the same as that of training a full-time judge, but the benefits to the state or local government of training a part-time judge are only a fraction of those realized bytraining afull-time judge, since a part-
time judge will hear only a fraction of the cases heard by a full-time judge receiving the same training. {10/27/81)
Additionally, part-time judges are generally not paid for the time they spend in continuing education. This creates a financial disincentive for part-time judges to attend continuing education courses, since the time spent in continuing education might ordinarily be spent practicing law or conducting other business. (10/27/81)
b. Conflicts of interest often arise in professional relationships for part-time judges. It is often difficult for other attorneys to litigate against an attorney and have to appear before the same attorney, sitting as judge, the next day. (10/27/81)
Additionally, cases in which part-time judges are disqualified usually arise in their own court, thus eliminating a large potential portion oftheir law practice. (10/27/81)
2. Promotion of Multi-Judge Circuits Multi-judge courts are more effective organi-
zations for administrative purposes. Some specific advantages of multi-judge courts are:
a. Accommodation ofjudicial absences. Multijudge circuits allow better management in the absence of ajudgefrom the circuit due to illness, disqualification, vacation, and the demands of other responsibilities such as continuing legal education. (10/27/81)
b. More efficient use ofjurors. Better use ofjury manpower can be effected when two judges hold court simultaneously in the same county. One judge in a multi-judge circuit may use the other judge's excess jurors for a trial of a second case rather than excusing them at an added expense to the county. Present courtroom space in most counties may not permit two trials simultaneously; but such a practice, if implemented, mayjustify the building ofasecond smaller courtroom by the county affected, or the making of other arrangements. (10/27/81)
c. Accommodation ofproblems ofimpartiality
or disqualification. A larger circuit with additional judges may permit hometown cases where acquaintances are involved to be considered by an out-of-town judge without the appearance that the local judge is avoiding responsibility. (10/27/81)
d. Improves court administration. Multi-judge circuits tend to promote impartiality and uniformity of administrative practices and procedures by making court ad ministration something more than the extension of a single judge's personality.Multi-judge circuits also permit economies in the deployment of auxiliary court personnel. (10/27/81)
e. Expedites handling of cases. Probably most important of all, under the arithmetic of calendar management, the judges of a multi-judge court can handle substantially more cases than an equal number of judges operating in separate courts. (10/27/81)
Besides the advantage of improved efficiency to be realized through the use of multi-judge circuits, thereare also a number of other reasons as to why this approach should be taken. Under the existing law, a newjudgeship may be created without the addition of another elected district attorney, although an assistant district attorney is added. However, when the circuit is divided and a new circuitthereby created, anotherelected district attorney is needed. (10/27/81)
A second reason supporting the use of multijudge circuits is that upon division of an existing circuit into two new ones, one new circuit may grow disproportionately to the other, or population or other factors suggesting division may diminish, thus negating the factors which initially led to the division arid compounding future problems of adjustment. (10/27/81)
Methodology 1. Criteria for Superior CourtJudgeship Requests
In establishing the need for additional superior court judgeships, the Judicial Council will consider weighted caseloads per judge for each circuit. If the per judge weighted caseload meets the threshold standards established by the council for consideration of an additional judgeship, additional criteria will be considered. The threshold standard for the Ratio Weighted Caseload System is 1,500 weighted caseload filings per judge and the threshold standard for the Delphi Weighted Caseload System is any value over the current number of judges in the judicial circuit. For example, ifthe circuit being considered has 2 judges, then the Delphi value must be any fraction over 2.
Additional criteria considered may include, but are not limited to the following, and are not necessarily in the order of importance as listed below:
a. Filings per judge b. Growth rate offilings per judge
c. Open cases per judge
d. Case backlog per judge e. Population served per judge f. Population growth g. Number and types of supporting courts h. Availability and use of senior judge assistance i. Number of resident attorneys per judge j. Responses to letters to legislators, county commissioners, presidents of local bar associations, district attorneys, and clerks of superior court asking for their input. {9/13/85)
Georgia Courts Journal
10
March 1999
GEOGRAPHY AND PERSONNEL as of November 1, 1998
CY 1997 WEfGHTED CASELOAD
FILINGS PER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, RANK, AND GROWTH: CY 1997
IRCUIT
NUMBER OF
SUPERIOR
COURT
NUMBER
JUDGE
OF
POSITIONS
COUNTIES AUTHORIZED
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
STATE
JUVENILE PROBATE
COURT
COURT
COURT
JUDGE
JUDGES & JUDGES
DELPHI
POSITIONS ASSOCIATE HEARING WEIGHTED
AUTHORIZED JUDGES TRAFFIC CASELOAD
RATIO WEIGHTED CASELOAD
TOTAL
CIRCUIT
FILINGS
INCLUDING
PROBATION
% CHANGE
REVOCATIONS RANK CY93 - CY97
TOTAL CIVIL FILINGS
% CHANGE RANK CY93-CY97
GENERAL DOMESTIC CIVIL RELATIONS
TOTAL
CRIMINAL
% CHANGE FELONY
FILINGS RANK CY93-CY97 DOCKETS
ALAPAHA
5
2
ALCOVY"
2
3
APPALACHIAN ATLANTA~
3
2
17
ATLANTIC
6
4
AUGUSTA
3
7
BELL-FORSYTH +
1
BLUE RIDGE
2
BRUNSWICK
5
4
CHATTAHOOCHEE
6
5
CHEROKEE
2
3
CLAYTON
4
COBB
8
CONASAUGA
2
4
CORDELE
4
2
COWETA
5
5
DOUGHERTY
3
DOUGLAS
1
3
DUBLIN
4
2
EASTERN
1
6
ENOTAH
4
2
FLINT
4
3
GRIFFIN
4
4
GWINNETT
7
HOUSTON
2
LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN
4
4
MACON
3
5
MIDDLE
5
2
MOUNTAIN
3
2
NORTHEASTERit.
NORTHERN
OCMULGEE
OCONEE
OGEECHEe
PATAULA
7
2
PIEDMONT
3
3
ROCKDALE
2
ROME
1
3
SOUTH GEORGIA
5
2
SOUTHERN">.
sciuwwemRk .
STONE MOUNTAIN
10
TALLAPOOSA
3
3
TIFTON
4
2
TOOMBS
6
2
WAYCROSS
6
3
WESTERN
2
3
1
1
4
1.54
1,854
2,995
0
3
2
2.66
1,754
Z;590
5%
1,024
39
18%
394
630
-32%
5$( ..
847
1,971
-1%
581
"49% 414
0
3
1.33
1,283
1,8!:i3
34
20%
949
43
20%
422
527
9
7
0
t2.60
1,3.56
1,e:t2
44
-21%
an
35%
268
-8% m
6
0
0
4.30
1,046
1,736
41
7%
877
46
-18%
283
594
242
47
-41%
190
4
1
!ll.11
1,465
2,311
11
-20%
1, 129
26
-45%
309
820
596
32
-17%
314
2
0
0.82
1,484
1,942
3
77%
1,358
10
20%
362
996
584
33
42%
368
1
0
1.13
1,263
1,639
42
28%
1,237
18
36%
252
985
402
46
9%
290
4
5
1
3.27
1,453
1,738
40
-1%
1,107
32
-6%
356
751
631
29
10%
450
2
2
5
6.94
1,535
1,913
30
-22%
1,217
21
-23%
465
752
639
28
-28%
423
0
2
2
3.34
1,603
2,189
17
2%
1,331
13
5%
589
742
859
12
-3%
282
4
3
0
3.61
1,556
1,953
29
10%
1,140
25
11%
168
972
813
17
10%
583
8
4
0
6.90
1,598
2,076
21
3%
1,283
15
-2%
242
1,041
793
19
12%
536
0
2
3.47
1,200
1,635
43
-27%
1,052
35
-21%
377
675
583
34
-22%
215
0
0
4
2:.07
1,746
2,810
2
28%
1,381
9
15%
527
854
898
10
10%
318
3
4
2
:i.82
1,515
1,822
38
-41%
1,250
17
-40%
344
907
571
37
-41%
428
1
2
0
2.06
1,469
1,878
33
-36%
1,043
37
-47%
330
713
834
15
-11%
505
0
2
1
2.51
1,578
2,094
19
-43%
1, 191
22
-51%
619
571
904
8
-28%
318
1
2
3
1.65
1,847
2,639
5
27%
1,402
5
0%
423
979
1,030
5
63%
520
2
2
0
4.49
1,195
1,553
45
-24%
979
41
-8%
287
693
574
36
-41%
413
0
0
4
1.76
1,354
2,074
22
48%
1,116
31
43%
425
692
619
30
21%
253
0
2
4
3.35
2,038
2,558
7
-12%
1,839
-14%
847
992
719
23
-8%
380
2
1
2
3.20
1,578
2,058
24
-25%
1,356
11
-20%
428
928
702
27
-35%
442
4
4
0
6.19
1,481
1,887
32
6%
1,390
7
4%
466
925
497
44
11%
324
1
0
1.17
1,381
1,832
37
-12%
1,120
30
-24%
269
851
712
24
18%
470
2
4
2
3.59
1,324
1,970
27
19%
1,227
19
22%
275
953
743
21
14%
285
2
2
4.02
1,348
1,892
31
-3%
1,129
26
-4%
317
811
704
26
-8%
350
5
2
0
2.14
1,685
2,304
12
19%
1,263
16
13%
401
862
707
25
5%
545
2
0
1.43
1,333
2,069
M8
1,$85{ . ZOS:l
18%
355
801
-3%
32'.2
79S
566
39
16%
243
931
62%
5$~
2.72
1,258
1,850
35
-18%
1,045
36
-20%
338
707
569
38
-28%
284
5.33
1,361
2,138
18
-12%
935
44
-26%
333
603
821
16
-22%
369
1.82
1,582
2:$$ / / 1,682
2,284
13
16%
1,340
12
21%
449
9%
29~
891 1,368.
726
22
-3%
315
499
43
-29%
369
2
3
5
1.18
1,444
1,970
27
28%
1,122
28
27%
425
697
849
13
38%
415
2
297
1,296
2,039
26
-10%
1,037
38
-21%
391
646
576
35
-26%
227
1
0
1.32
1,103
1,497
46
29%
953
42
10%
290
663
545
40
87%
321
0
3
1
2.75
1,487
2,281
14
20%
1,059
34
11%
433
626
1,222
2
30%
279
3
2
2
1.25
1,373
0%
444
779
598
31
10%
282
1;787
-32%
. 45T
1371
&45
14
-21%
526.
2.14
. : 1,52$
0%
581
354
1,125
4
17%
263
6
4
0
~l.85
,A.758
2,266
16
11%
1,388
8
7%
203
1,186
878
11
17%
606
0
2
3
~l.30
1,593
2,391
9
24%
1,329
14
21%
580
749
807
18
12%
233
2
3
2
1.66
1,672
2,377
10
47%
1,594
3
48%
462
1,132
520
41
-5%
285
0
0
6
1.48
1,303
2,077
20
17%
1,068
33
32%
354
715
767
20
-12%
224
3
3
3
2.53
1,366
1,840
36
9%
1,155
23
-1%
438
718
516
42
6%
302
1
3
2.10
1,135
1,487
47
-34%
982
40
-32%
374
607
404
45
-46%
270
(TOTAL) OR MEAN
(159)
(175)
(97)
(93)
(93)
1,482
Circuit has submitted a judgeship reqest.
+ Juvenile Court is served by the state court judge and an associate.
Notes: 1. There wm be a state court judge In Bacon and Hanry counties as of 111199. 2. Juvenile courtjdges & associate judges lnc:lude pro tern judges.
Atlanta Judicial Circuit jury trials and open caseload data are incomplete; Cordele Judicial Circuit Includes CY96 data for Dooly C-Ounty rather than CY97 data.
. All whole numbers have been rounded from decimal values.
2,074
1, 191
393
799
747
374
11
12
TOTAL
JUVENILE
MISDE-
FILINGS
MEANOR PROBATION (NUMBER OF)
DOCKETS REVOCATIONS CHILDREN) RANK
% CHANGE CY93-CY97
OPEN CASELOAD PER JUDGE
JURY TRIAL DISPOSITIONS
POPULATION
SENIOR JUDGES
AND RANK:
PER JUDGE AND RANK:
AND RESIDENT ACTIVE ATTORNEYS
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
U.S. CENSUS
1997
1997
1997
ESTIMATED
PROJECTED
CRIMINAL
CML
POPULATION
POPULATION
SENIOR
1998 RESIDENT
TOTAL
COUNTS
CASES
PER
PER
JUDGE
ACTIVE
OPEN
TOTAL
HEARD
HEARD
SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR
DAYS OF
ATTORNEYS
FILINGS RANK BACKLOG RANK BY JURY RANK BY JURY RANK CT. JUDGE RANK CT. JUDGE RANK ASSISTANCE RANK PER JUDGE RANK
1,356
35
37.0
19
460
316
448
189
8
214
5
47
148
134
617
2
53%
586
3
-1%
393 44 1,145 9
180 45 799 7
27.5 35 61.4 12
10.3 11
33,377
33
37,623
34
10.6 10
43,5,l9
14
51,442
13
69.0
12
91.0
10
22.8 60.6
42 ATLANTIC 16 AUGUSTA
13
203
21
91
112
70
130
86
0
0
0
-100%
57
20
103%
1,047 15 868 22 583 38
1,103 11
594 18 524 21 266 39 726 11
64.0 9 50.5 15 23.8 39 36.8 26
10.0 12
75,749
73,294
5
21.5
26
105.0
8 BELL-FORSYTH+
6.5 27
63,419
4
74,845
4
5.5
35
69.0
12 BLUE RIDGE
11.5
7
41,470
19
46,689
21
164.0
5
57.0
17 BRUNSWICK
56.2
48,591
10
53,710
10
97.5
9
73.4
11 CHATTAHOOCHEE
217
359
0
1,176 8
780 9
163.3
9.3 15
36,490
27
43,410
23
22.0
24
38.3
26 CHEROKEE
24
206
0
812 26
401 30
79.0 5
6.5 27
51,049
7
66,313
6
3.0
38
62.0
15 CLAYTON
27
230
0
1,085 13
592 19
38.5 23
4.3 40
68,882
3
90,026
2
318.0
3
167.3
2 COBB
245
123
0
-100%
845 23
509 23
78.0 6
6.8 24
28,315
40
33,722
38
9.0
32
31.5
31 CONASAUGA
282
298
55
88
102
227
405
180
531
4
45%
0
0
0
433 42 836 24 626 36 1,091 12
227 42 494 25 346 34 625 16
30.5 31 44.4 18 37.3 25 42.7 20
2.0 46
27,861
42
30,807
42
2.6 45
50,697
8
59,078
8
5.0 37
31,933
34
35,389
36
8.3 19
28,884
39
52,487
12
11.0
30
43.0
16
3.0
38
59.0
13
20.5 54.6 74.0 34.3
44 CORDELE 19 COWETA 10 DOUGHERTY 30 DOUGLAS
395
116
207
16 109%
792 28
498 24
21.0 42
6.5 27
33,838
31
37,768
33
11.0
30
31.0
32 DUBLIN
13
149
0
700 32
390 32
43.2 19
6.5 27
37,656
25
45,565
22
74.0
11
106.2
7 EASTERN
270
96
339
8
56%
603 37
280 37
62.0 11
8.0 20
29,396
37
32,949
39
28.0
22
24.0
40 ENOTAH
209
130
0
1,757
1, 101 2
65.0 8
11.0
8
49,749
9
52,578
11
50.0
15
50.3
20 FLINT
122
138
0
1,212 6
746 10
48.8 16
6.8 24
45,406
13
54,338
9
7.0
33
63.3
14 GRIFFIN
)
0
173
0
112
130
0
674 34 949 19
259 40 701 12
16.1 44 24.0 38
16.7
3
20.0
2
71,545 51,772
2
108,455
6
61,623
3.0
38
128.9
4 GWINNETT
7
100.5
8
66.0
13 HOUSTON
286
172
0
807 27
461 27
12.5 46
6.8 24
37,250
26
40,307
29
20.0
27
26.8
37 LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN
36
317
60
19
15%
1,006 18
609 17
31.8 29
9.4 14
38,214
23
37,391
35
106.0
7
110.4
5 MACON
2
161
333
9
19%
1,411 3
1,033 3
60.0 13
7.0 22
46,688
50,843
16
0.0
45
41.5
24 MIDDLE
151
173
MOUNTAIN
>147
.224
< # > > > >Y <l <ttY }~; .nn .{~ @ia<l. .)/ ~:r3LYM // j;*:aJ/ . >~t~( r. #~.~?;.)/.j(l'./. .i .@)!St}: <..H~l .i iz~tr.? i?P)ff ~; )}.. ..}f1f~] ...ii .D~i'l ~ttiM~~~)).......
98
186
NORTHERN
208
245
312
122
223
126
35
189
246
0
-100%
426
5
20%
0
0
359 46 770 30 551 40 931 20
160 46 459 28 234 41 541 20
35.0 27
32.0
> ~ii
15.5
62.3
26.0
3.6
t < ~,1<
42
27,824
30,923
l i M~~j~
26,578
29,292
33,525
43
38,419
OCMULGEE
36
32,677
~; ~.9sq/
tu+ u OCONEE
< rn:~~> <P$ > u~,1n i~::1~eia~~~~
45
25,948
46
40.0
17
20.0
45 PATAULA
38
32,061
41
6.0
34
37.7
27 PIEDMONT
32
50, 122
18
0.0
45
31.0
32 ROCKDALE
3.0
46.7
21 ROME
SOUTH GEORGIA
.IUlllJ.:
0
272
389
184
99
137
400
143
85
128
48
85
0
256
12
-23%
264
11
100%
242
13
28%
169
17
47%
102
18
16%
1,040 16 1,142 10
931 20 664 35 813 25 682 33
489 26 648 14 636 15 433 29 523 22 394 31
37.7 24 69.3 7 22.5 40 21.0 42 51.3 14 40.3 22
8.6 17
58,773
5
79,973
3
395.0
2
152.2
3 STONE MOUNTAIN
10.0 12
42,976
17
46,988
19
0.0
45
25.7
38 TALLAPOOSA
6.0 31
38,686
22
41,024
27
38.0
18
42.5
23 TIFTON
6.0 31
19,482
47
28,106
45
1.0
42
17.0
46 TOOMBS
3.7 41
39,400
20
43,158
25
37.0
19
41.3
25 WAYCROSS
12.3
5
38,036
24
46,881
20
1.0
42
109.0
6 WESTERN
200
174
135
873
524
46
9
34,194
40,495
66
65
13
14
Judicial Council policy continued
2. Criteria for Studying Requests to Alter Circuit
e. Characteristics of populace in areas of allocations. Votes on such motions shall be by
Boundaries
circuits sought to be separated, such as rural secret written ballot. A two-thirds vote of the
The criteria used by the Judicial Council in or urban. (12/11/81}
council membership present at the session
reviewing proposals to alter circuit boundaries
f. Operational policies of circuit as presently will be required to override an unfavorable
will include the following criteria:
constituted as might involve inattention to recommendation based on the criteria con-
a. Weighted Caseload per Judge - After the smaller counties in circuit. (12/11/81)
tained in these by-laws (policy). After deter-
proposed change in circuit boundaries, case-
g. Whether creation of new circuit would mining those circuits in which the council
load should be more evenly distributed. In obviate necessity of one or two additional recommends an additional judgeship, the
addition, a proposed circuit's workload should judges in parent circuit. (12/11/81)
council will rank the recommendations based
not vary significantly from the statewide aver-
h. Travel and other expenses incident to on need. (6/6/84)
age weighted caseload per judge. (10/27/81) serving smaller counties. (12/11/81)
b. Caseload Growth Trends - Caseload
i. Alleviation of case assignment problems 5. Length of Recommendations
growth trends should be examined so that an in larger counties of circuit. (12/11/81}
Upon a recommendation of an additional
imbalance in growth rates when a circuit bound-
j. Population growth of counties of circuit judgeship or to alter circuit boundaries for a
ary is changed will not necessitate a realloca- which would reflect need for new circuit. judicial circuit by the council, the recommen-
tion of manpower or alteration of circuit bound- (12/11/81)
dation shall remain approved by the council for
aries again in the near future. Such continual
k. Comparison population per judge in new a period of three years, unless the caseload of
shifts in circuit boundaries or manpower could circuit with standards approved by Judicial that circuit changes by plus or minus ten
be very unsettling and, thereby, significantly Council in recent years. (12/11/81}
percent. (Rev. 12/13/96}
reduce judicial efficiency. (10/27/81)
I. The Judicial Council will presume that a
If a reliable caseload projection method is multi-judge circuit is preferred over a single- 6. Disqualifications
available, this technique will be used to deter- judge circuit. (12/11/81}
Any council member in a circuit or county
mine future case filings; if one is not available,
m. If a county is to be split oft from the circuit affected by a council recommendation shall be
caseload growth rates, increases in the num- of which it is a part, the possibilities of adding eligible to vote by secret ballot on motions
ber of attorneys per capita and population that county to another circuit should be ex- affecting that circuit, but shall not be present or
projections will be analyzed. The population hausted prior to the council's recommending a participate in the council's final deliberations
per judge should be evenly divided among the single-judge circuit. (12/11/81)
regarding his or her circuit. (Rev. 6/6/84)
geographical areas affected by the proposed
circuit boundary change if a recommendation Judicial Council Deliberations
Dissemination of Recommendations
is to be made.
1. Testimony
1. Study of the Need for Additional Superior
Secondly, population projections should be
Judges, legislators, and others deemed
Court Judgeships
examined to insure that disparate population appropriate by the chairman shall be invited to
The Administrative Office of the Courts shall
growth rates will not create a great imbalance make written remarks or present data regard- prepare a report, including data required by
in the population to be served by each judge ing the need for judgeships or to alter circuit the council for their deliberations and council
within a short period of time from the date boundaries. Any special circumstance or data policy statement, on the Judicial Council's
of the alteration of the circuit boundaries. of a circuit for which a request is to be made recommendations as to the need for additional
Lastly, the population per judge of the altered must be brought to the attention of the Judicial superior court judgeships. Such report shall
circuit should not be substantially different Council by a judge of the requesting circuit by be distributed to the governor, members of the
from the statewide average population per June 1 of the year prior to the year of the judiciary and special judiciary committees of
judge. (10/27/81}
legislative session during which the judgeship the Senate and House, all superiorcourtjudges
c. Changes in Judicial Travel Time - Travel or change in circuit boundaries will be consid- and other interested parties approved by the
time diminishes total judicial time available for ered. The written testimony of the judges, director of the Administrative Office of the
case processing; therefore, travel time should legislators and other persons shall be reviewed Courts. Additionally, the Administrative Office
not be significantly increased for judges in and considered by the Judicial Council in their of the Courts shall prepare and distribute a
circuits affected by a change in circuit bound- deliberations regarding judicial manpower. Oral press release summarizing the council's rec-
aries before such a change should be recom- arguments will not be made. (6/6/84}
ommendations. (10/27/81)
mended. Terms of court in and the number
of times each county was visited on case- 2. Final Deliberations
2. Special Studies of Judicial Manpower,
related business by the judges should be
After all written presentations, the Judicial
Including Alteration of Circuit Boundaries
determined and these trips should be trans- Council and key Administrative Office of the
a. The Administrative Office of the Courts
'< .
lated into travel time by using official distances Courts staff, in open session, will discuss the shall prepare reports on the Judicial Council's
between courthouses and road conditions merits of each request. (6/6/84)
recommendations for special studies,
determined by the Georgia Department of
including reports on requests to alter circuit
Public Safety. (10/27/81)
3. Staff presentations
boundaries and for judgeships of courts
d. Projected Changes in Cost to State and
The Administrative Office of the Courts will other than the superior court and shall dis-
Local Government- Cost savings or additional present data evaluating the need to add judge- tribute them to the requestor and, in the discre-
expenditures required of local and state ships or to alter circuit boundaries based on tion of the director, to other interested parties.
governing authorities should be determined. council approved criteria and will make staff (10/27/81)
Changes in cost for personnel, facilities, and recommendations. (10/27/81)
b. In preparing special reports, written re-
travel should be considered. A recommen-
marks of judges, legislators, and others
dation for change should not be made unless 4. Vote
deemed appropriate by the chairperson shall
additional expenditures required are minimal
After final deliberations, the council will, in be solicited by the Administrative Office of
or balanced by equivalent cost savings. open session, entertain approve or disapprove the Courts and considered by the Judicial
(10/27/81)
recommended changes in judicial manpower Council. (12/11/86)
March 1999
15
Georgia Courts Journal
For Your Information ...
I. Cost of a new superior court judgeship:
A new judgeship requires funding from the state and counties of the circuit. Fixed costs do not fluctuate with the volume of activity. Variable costs fluctuate according to changes in the volume of activity or local preference.
State Costs
Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits
Superior court judge Judge's secretary
Assi si:a ri+a fsfric:!a!tcirn ey
Court reporter (contingent expense)
Other fixed costs
Library
frili@_~e>J:!lPii.i:~~:~acittic~ ~~iQment
Total range of fixed costs
Salary $92,772
25,260 29;958 - 74,311
960-4,560
$6,248 ;s,ooo
Fringe benefits
$25,542 9,131
1o,83o~ 26;885
Total range
$118,314 34,391
40,788 - 101,256 960-4,560
. $6,248 15,000
$215,701 - 279,769
Variable costs - travel expenses
Average
- - - - - - - - - m Superiorcourtju._d=ge_______________________
$2,402
Assistant district attorne)I__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------- _______________________
---- -------------
Total average variable costs
$3, 161
II. Cost of dividing a judicial circuit without adding an additional judgeship:
The division of a judicial circuit requires additional state funding and may result in substantial changes in county costs as well. County costs could decrease significantly if salaries for county-paid positions are assumed by the state. Depending on what the county sees as necessary for meeting its needs, county costs could increase due to county salary supplements or increased operating expenses. While the minimum new costs to the state can be estimated, the effect of a circuit division on county costs will vary depending on the balance of the county's needs and resources as well as on the proportion of the total circuit costs that each county paid prior to the division of the circuit.
The figures listed below represent the range of new annual costs that the state would bear (as of January 1, 1999).
State Costs
Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits District attorney
Assisi:antdisfrki:ai:icirney(vici:iiiiii9hi:sl
DDJAi/s's"sinevcersetit"aQraieiosr-(2)t - - - -
Law clerk for chief judge Total range of fixed costs
Salary
Fringe benefits
Total range
$82,635 29;9s8=74,3if
$22,751
$105,386
f1,941=26;883 41;9os~Tof.2s4
............. __Lj3,_?99_~ ?l,}11 .............. 1~,??1 ~~SJ?~ ................ ?~,(j}l ~~7,9~9
26,796 - 57,840
9,687 - 20,909
36,483 - 78,749
30,516
4,257
34,773
$278,178- 417,252
Variable costs - travel expenses District attorney
oAAss'sisintavnetsdi:ii9satri:iccitrattor-ne y-
DA's secretaries (2)
Total average variable costs
Average $1,363
- - - -r735439
283 $3,748
Georgia Courts Journal
16
March 1999
For Your Information ...
Ill. Cost of dividing a judicial circuit and adding a superior court judgeship simultaneously:
The creation of a new judgeship and a new circuit would result in the following additional positions and costs.
State Costs
Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits
Salary
District attorney
_ _ _ _ _$_82,635
Assistant district attorneyTvictim rig~-
29,958 - 74,371
DA's s_ecretaries (2)t
43,800 - ?l,311
DA's investigator
Lawclerkf6r cfiiefJudge ---
26,796 - 57,840 30,516
For adding a judgeship
Superior court judge Judge's secretary Assisfanidisfrkfai:t:orney Court reporter (contingent expense)
$92,772
25,260
29;958- 74;371
960-4,560
Other fixed costs
Library Initial computer and office equipment
$6,248 15,000
Total range offixed costs
Variable costs - travel expenses
For circuit division
District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's investigator DA's secretaries (2)t
For adding a judgeship
Superior court judge Assist(l:nt district afiorney _ _
Total average variable costs
Fringe benefits
Total range
$22,751
$105,386
11,947-26;8~- 41,905-101,254
1:;,}1 ~ 25,???
_??,Ci} 1 ~-??,Q?O
-9,687 . -. . .204,,920591
36,4...8.....3..... - 3748,,777439
$25,542
$118,314
9,131
34,391
i o,830:26)l85 ......... 46,788~101,256
960-4,560
$6,248 15,000 $493,879- 697,022
Average
$1,363 759
1,343 283
$2,402
- 759
$6,909
t These figures reflect the total costs for two individuals in these positions.
I ~~~~~- "' ''" ennuolly '"'uning
except fo, the establi,hment of judge'' libmy ond ocqui,ition of initiol compute'
and office equipment.
Salaries and fringe benefits are calculated from 10/1/98 figures.
Travel expenses are calculated from fiscal year 1998 expenses.
Average figures for county costs are unavailable or vary too widely to be included. However, county costs will include the following:
Fixed costs
Variable costs
Travel allowances or reimbursement for county-paid personnel Office operating expenses Ii.II Necessary courtroom and office space acquisition
March 1999
17
Georgia Courts Journal
State of the Judiciary address continued from page 1
you have provided, making Georgia a leader in the Southeast and putting this state well on the road to becoming a leader in the country in the twenty-first century. As we begin the last year of the second millennium it gives us all an opportunity to stop and reflect on the
We are proud to report that the state of the
judiciary is fine. We have some of the best and some the brightest judges in the nation.
many blessings we have enjoyed here in the great state of Georgia. We have been very fortunate to have outstanding leaders in this state. Governor Miller, through his appointments, has made Georgia's judiciary one of the finest in the nation. Lieutenant Governor Howard, as a loyal legislator, provided excellent leadership in the Senate.
Speaker Murphy has not only been the longest serving speaker in the country, but he has been one of the greatest speakers in the country. As he and I exchanged pleasantries this morning, both of us couldn't help stopping to reflect on our years as lawyers and friends. It was some thirty years ago that I went to practice in northwest Georgia and had an opportunity to meet the speaker. He pulled me aside, and he said, "You're one of our own and we're going to make sure that things work out." Mr. Speaker, just a month ago when your son and my friend was sworn in as a member of the judiciary, I know his mother was looking down on him with pride, and you were looking at him with pride. I was looking at him with tears in
my eyes, because I knew how far we had come, having been at the university together and having practiced law in the same area. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that just as you told me some thirty years ago everything would work out for me as a lawyer, I can assure you that everything is going to work out for your son as a judge.
We take pride as members of the judiciary in welcoming Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor as they assume their new positions of leadership in this state. We also take pride in welcoming our own Judge Edward Johnson who has assumed his position as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. We also take pride in welcoming Judge Anne Barnes, the newest and most junior member of the Court of Appeals, and we welcome all of our new chief judges who are assuming positions throughout the state.
We are also proud of all of our legislators, and we are proud of our lawyer legislators-those who have given of their time, energy, effort, and service to their fellow human beings. As the new legislators assume their roles, I want to remind you of something my dad told me when I was twelve. Simple message: he sat us down, my two brothers and me, and said, "This is what it takes to live in this family: you will serve your God, you will sacrifice for your family, you will share with your neighbors, and you will perform public service if called upon to do so." I see you have heeded the call of the very challenge my daddy issued some forty years ago, and we are proud of all of you as legislators.
We are proud to report that the state of the judiciary is fine. We have some of the best and some the brightest judges in the nation. We have some of the most dedicated
public employees in our court system and some of them are here with us today sitting in the galleryjudges, law clerks, court personnel who serve the judiciary and who serve the citizens of this state. And I'd like for those members of the judiciary in the gallery and those members of the court system to stand and be recognized.
Role of the judiciary
And while our duty is that of service to the citizens of this state, we want to assure you that we know the role that we must play. It's a simple role: you make the law, and we interpret the law, and that's the only role we have-one of interpreting the law. We've enjoyed the wonderful relationship we have had with the executive and legislative branches of government, so this morning I'm not going to report on all aspects of the judiciary. I will take my lead from the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, who
But when I look at our dreams and our hopes, I realize that it is our dream and our hope that you will give us more judges on
the Court of Appeals.
=.w.,-,,,,,,. . .~~~ . . ~ . . .~ ~~-~~. . . . .~
during their inaugural addresses talked about over-riding and overarching principals. But I will tell you that we will be more than glad to furnish you a copy of our annual report.
Let me set the tone. Those of you who have been here for the three previous years when I delivered the State of the Judiciary Address know full well I'm from somewhat of an old school. My twelve-year-
Continued next page
Georgia Courts Journal
18
March 1999
Chief Justice Benham addresses General Assembly continued
old son says that I am from a bygone era. In fact, he says thankfully a bygone era. But I'm from an era where we see good and blessings in everything that occurs, and there is a poem that sort of reflects that kind of goodness. It's called "A Steadfast Heart." The author is unknown. It says:
We've dreamed many dreams that never came true and faded with the dawn,
but we've had enough of our dreams come true to keep us dreaming on.
We prayed many prayers that were never answered though we prayed and waited long,
but we've had enough of our prayers answered to keep us praying on.
We trusted many a friend-some disappointed us and left us to cry alone,
but we've had enough of our friends remain true to keep us trusting on.
We've sown many seeds-some have fallen by the road for the birds to feed upon,
but we've had enough of our seeds bear fruit to keep us sowing on.
Yes, we've tasted the disappointment and pain, and sometimes we've been left without a song,
but we've also tasted the sweet nectar of the roses that will keep us going on.
And that describes what we do in the judiciary. There's happiness, there's heartache, and there's pain, but we continue to solve the problems of our communities. And as I reflect on the friends, the dreams, the hopes, the promises and the seeds that have been sown, I can't help but have a deep sense of pride at what we've accomplished in this great state. We must be doing something right, because everyday when I look out my door I see another moving van coming into our community. People are leaving the snowbelt and coming to the sunbelt
for some of the southern tradition and opportunity and, hopefully, some of our southern hospitality.
Dreams and hopes
But when I look at our dreams and our hopes, I realize that it is our dream and our hope that you will give us more judges on the Court of Appeals. We deserve the best judiciary in the country because we have the best people in the country. We have one of the
We continue to dream and hope that you will find a way to fund at the state level our juvenile court judges.Juvenile justice can no longer be considered just a matter
of local concern.
most overworked appellate courts in the country. They must do three times the work of any other Court of Appeals. Our fate is in your hands. We hope that you hear our cry and answer our plea for help.
We appreciate the efforts you've made in the area of juvenile justice. You've helped us improve the system by passing statutes to deal with crimes. We continue to dream and hope that you will find a way to fund at the state level our juvenile court judges. Juvenile justice can no longer be considered just a matter of local concern. Juvenile justice must be a matter of statewide concern. The fate of our children is in your hands. We hope you will hear our plea and answer our call.
We trusted you as our friends, and our trust has been rewarded because you created six new superior court judgeships, and those judges are now serving throughout
this state. We trusted you, and our trust has been rewarded. You funded legal services in the area of domestic violence. We trusted you, and our trust has been rewarded in that you've provided adequate funding for the operation of the judiciary. We will continue to trust you because we have more things in common than we have things which separate us.
We've sown our own seeds also. We've created now our Blue Ribbon Commission to look at the judiciary. We created it without an additional penny of revenue from the state. The money to fund the Blue Ribbon Commission came from the lawyers of this state. This is being done in a way so that we can look at the entire judiciary and make it cost-effective, make it efficient, and continue to make it fair.
We've created a Commission on Public Trust and Confidence to look at ways in which the bench and the Bar can improve the delivery of legal services to the citizens and improve the quality of justice. We put many members from the private sector on this Commission on Public Trust and Confidence, and they will be going to Washington next month to join with other members to look at the development of a strategic plan.
We've created judicial district committees on professionalism to make sure that lawyers are not only competent, but are civil in their dealings with each other, with the court and with the community, and they are public servants and community servants. We are now beginning to look at court unification and give the various courts an opportunity to discuss a way that we can deliver justice in a costeffective and efficient manner. We have many commissions that are leaders not only in the southeast
Continued next page
March 1999
19
Georgia Courts Journal
State of the Judiciary address continued from page 19
but also in the nation-our com-
Norman Fletcher. He and I came to
didn't have to endure the cold of
mittees and commissions on
the court together. He came from
the Korean War. He can't even
alternative dispute resolution and
the mountains, and during hisser-
fathom the concept of the Vietnam
professionalism, our program on
vice he has been a monument for
War.
substance abuse and our Commis-
the protection of the rights of citi-
And so many of our young
sion on Equality, and our foster
zens and insuring that justice is
people never had to fight for their
care program. We thank you for
delivered fairly and efficiently and
freedom. They so easily take it for
your support of our attempts to
effectively to all of our citizens.
granted. Freedom must be fought
address many issues that are com-
We appreciate the judges and
for, and so every day the judges of
ing before the courts.
justices who have been willing to
this state put on the armor of law,
Our courts automation commis-
make the unpopular decisions and
and they go out to slay the dragon
sion is doing all that it can within
call it as they see it, and we express of injustice, so that freedom is pre-
..,. its power to address the increasing
needs of technology. We continue
deep appreciation for all of our judges who have provided protec-
served for all of our citizens. We enjoy the role, and we will con-
to ask for your support of this very
tion for all of the citizens in our
tinue to fight for your freedom and
worthwhile effort. Our Administra- state. But we don't have just good
for the rights of all of the citizens of
tive Office of the Courts is one of
judges, we have good DAs in the
this state.
the best in the nation. We will con-
state, we have good clerks, we have
As I come to an end, I look out
tinue to improve the way in which
good lawyers, and we have good
and see the new legislators. If I
we administer justice.
courthouse administrators to make
started with a poem, I guess I'll just
Just recently we had over 2.3
sure that our court system is user-
end with one. There's a poem by an
million cases filed in the various
friendly.
unknown author which says:
courts of this state, excluding the traffic courts. We will need your additional help as we seek to deliver justice to all of the citizens of this state.
So as we continue to administer justice, we remind you that our doors swing open on welcome hinges. But just because they swing open on welcome hinges, that
I have not lived in vain if I've lit some spark of hope in some helpless soul
or helped some struggling brother or sister lift a heavy load.
doesn't mean that all problems can
If I have shed a light in a darkened
Visions and visionaries
be solved in the courthouse. The
hour then I have not lived in vain.
We have vision. We have a vision that one day the Supreme Court will become a cert court so that we can handle only the most pressing and important problems in the Supreme Court, and that our Court of Appeals will be adequately staffed so it can handle the prob-
courthouse is an avenue of last resort, not an avenue of first resort. The best solutions come across the dinner table, across the conference table, and across the backyard fence. So we ask you also to empower the communities to address problems in their own communi-
If we've erred as all men and women have and displeased the God from whence we came,
but heard him say thou are forgiven, then our prayers have not been in vain.
We put our heart and soul within our labor.
lems that come before that court. If we have been successful, we
have been so not just because we have good chief justices, we also have good justices, good judges, good staff people, and good legislators to address the needs of this
ties and reserve the most intractable problems for the judiciary.
On January 1 we celebrated the Emancipation Proclamation. As I was preparing to go to a celebration, my twelve-year-old son asked me, "Daddy, why is there so much
We didn't strive to reach the hall of fame.
We labored among the meek and the lowly.
We've seen our fruits, our work has not been in vain.
state. And as I recognize members
fuss about freedom? What's so im-
And now as I come to a close and
of this body who have been out-
portant about it?" I was somewhat
return to the chambers from which
standing leaders, I also realize that
shocked and surprised that my son
we came, we do not fear nor dread
in order for us to be successful we
would take freedom so lightly, and
this hour. All is well, for we have
must have outstanding jurists not
then I realized that he wasn't here
not lived in vain.
/~,
only on the trial bench but also on
during World War I. He didn't
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, Mr.
the appellate bench. One of those
have to go from hedgerow to
Speaker, that is the State of the
justices is Presiding Justice
hedgerow in World War IL He
Judiciary. to
Georgia Courts Journal
20
March 1999
Second round of grants to fund services for domestic violence victims
The Judicial Council has awarded grants of $280,093 as part of its ongoing effort to increase civil legal services to victims of domestic violence. Funds were awarded as follows:
The Georgia Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty in Atlanta received $109,941. The funds will provide outreach to homeless shelters and other agencies not currently being served by the Atlanta Legal Aid Society Inc. or Georgia Legal Services Program.
Gateway House in Gainesville received $57,652. This domestic violence shelter will provide all aspects of temporary protective order issuance and follow through; coordination of community and victimwitness services; coordination of follow-up hearings with Georgia Legal Services; and procurement of legal representation for victims.
The Cherokee Family Violence
Center, which serves Cherokee and Pickens counties, received $42,500 to enhance services already offered at the center: crisis intervention, legal advocacy, food and clothing, life skills workshops, children's programs, counseling, referral, case management, and batterers intervention supervision.
Georgia Legal Services received a $70,000 supplement to an initial grant. The money will augment existing legal resources to rural areas.
The Georgia General Assembly provided state funds to the Judicial Council for this project last year. Initially, the Judicial Council awarded $1.5 million to Georgia Legal Services and Atlanta Legal Aid. A final $220,000 will be awarded in the near future. The grant program is the culmination of an effort of the State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office.
Progress report
Since receiving its grant last September, Georgia Legal Services has provided direct legal assistance to victims, families and children in more than 650 cases, including assistance in obtaining Temporary Protective Orders, housing and public benefits. Staff also assisted with housing, employment, personal property, public benefits, child custody and support issues. Thirteen new attorneys have been added to 11 regional offices throughout the state. Their training and outreach programs have been greatly expanded.
The Atlanta Legal Aid Society has hired four new staff attorneys, entered into contracts with two private attorneys and hired an Hispanic outreach paralegal. In the first three months of the grant, Legal Aid staff represented over 450 victims of domestic violence. rte,
Superior court judges take office in Mountain and Tallapoosa Circuits
James E. Cornwell Jr., who was elected to the superior court bench of the Mountain Circuit in the November election, was sworn in by Chief Justice Robert Benham on November 30. Judge Cornwell was accompanied at the podium by this wife, Dana C. Cornwell.
Michael L. Murphy, son of House Speaker Thomas B. Murphy, was sworn in by Gov. Miller as a judge of the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit on December 3 at the State Capitol. Judge Murphy fills the seat vacated by the retirement of Chief Judge Arthur W. Fudger.
March 1999
21
Georgia Courts Journal
Judicial Qualifications Commission
Executive director position available July 1
The Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission-a constitutionally created commission charged with the duty of investigating and acting upon allegations of judicial misconduct or disability-is accepting applications for the position of executive director effective July 1, 1999.
The applicant must be a member of the State Bar of Georgia with a minimum of 10 years active trial experience, strong administrative and interpersonal skills, and capable of dealing professionally with the bench, bar and public.
The primary duties of this position, which should require less than a full-time commitment, involve:
Dealing with the public by phone, fax, mail, and occasionally, in person; receiving and processing complaints of judicial misconduct; reviewing, summarizing, and circulating docketed complaints to the commission; preparing and distributing monthly meeting agendas and dockets; recording, transcribing and circulating minutes of commission meetings for review and approval; distribution of correspondence relating to decisions of the commission; liaison with independent counsel for the commission regarding the preparation and presentation of complaints in formal hearings by the commission including the drafting of findings and recommendations for transmission to the Supreme Court of Georgia; drafting of formal advisory opinions for commission consideration and correspondence relating thereto; handling all forms of communication between the commission and the public, the media, the courts, and other state and national judicial conduct organizations; conferring with and assisting the Administrative Office of the Courts concerning budgetary and other administrative matters; speaking, as requested, on judicial ethics and the work of the commission at ICJE seminars and other judicial functions; maintaining accurate and complete records of all commission actions and transferring records to the State Archives as appropriate; performing election responsibilities required by commission Rule 27.
Salary is negotiable depending upon qualifications and experience, and certain benefits are available.
Applications must be received by March 15, 1999, and should be addressed to: Earle B. May Jr., Executive Director Judicial Qualifications Commission Suite 206 77 E. Crossville Road Roswell, GA 30075-3085 Or faxed to (770) 587-5422
Georgia Courts JOURNAL
Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 550 Atlanta, GA 30334-5900
Georgia CourtsJOURNAL
Vol. 26 No. 3
Georgia Judicial Council
Chief Justice Robert Benham, Chair Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher,
Vice Chair Judge Joe C. Bishop Judge G. Alan Blackburn Judge William T. Boyett Judge Robert J. Castellani Judge Howard Cook Judge Richard S. Gault Judge John E. Girardeau Judge Helen W. Harper Judge Joseph Iannazzone Chief Judge Edward H. Johnson Judge Cliff L. Jolliff Judge William F. Lee Jr. Judge H. Arthur McLane Judge Walter C. McMillan Jr. Judge T. Penn McWhorter Judge Charles B. Mikell Jr. Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore Judge Johnny R. Parker Judge Donny Peppers Sr. Judge T.O. Sturdivant III Judge A.J. Welch Jr. Senior Judge E. Mullins Whisnant
Administrative Office of the Courts Director
George Lange III
Senior Communications Officer Billie Bolton Editor
Nancy K. Pevey
The Georgia Courts Journal is a publication of the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. It welcomes news about Georgia's courts, their programs and personnel. Editorial and circulation offices: AOC, Suite 550, 244 Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171.
BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE
PAID ATLANTA, GA PERMIT #1880
Address Correction Requested
( ) Printed on recycled paper.