Judicial District Professionalism Program: Reining in Rambo
By: Robert D. Ingram (Marietta) and Judge Robert L. Allgood

(Augusta Judicial Circuit)
Co-Chairs, State Bar of Georgia, Bench and Bar Committee

Introduction

Over the past several years members of the bench and bar have decried the fact that many of the professional traditions of the bar are becoming lost or ignored. Certainly, the majority of bench and bar members conduct themselves in a way that reflects adherence to fundamental values and respect for their colleagues and our system of justice. However, there are a small minority of lawyers and judges who conduct themselves in a manner which shows little regard for colleagues, clients, or the courts.

 

In 1996 the Bench and Bar Committee of the State Bar of Georgia began meeting with judges and lawyers in an effort to identify problems existing between the bench and bar so that solutions could be developed. In the fall of 1997, the Bench and Bar Committee held a meeting at Brasstown Valley in conjunction with the Fall Board of Governors Meeting wherein lawyers and judges from across the state, including members of the State Bar Executive Committee, and the Council of Superior Court Judges, met and brainstormed issues of concern to both.

 

One of the primary concerns which came out of this conference was the decline of professionalism and civility. Following this conference, the Bench and Bar Committee resolved to attempt to foster within the legal community a climate of responsibility, appropriate conduct and respect for others.

 

Professionalism Concerns: Dealing with Rambo Lawyers and Judges

 

The practice of law is a profession, not a trade. Accordingly, civility, fair dealing, and professionalism are not merely aspirational goals but should be self imposed minimum standards of conduct. For a variety of reasons - business demands, increased competition, financial demands, the pressure to move cases - professional responsibility has become a forgotten notion for a few so-called “Rambo” lawyers and judges. As noted in a USA Today article entitled “Disorder on the Rise in the Nation’s Courts: Judges, Lawyers seeing Greater Lack of Civility,” some attorneys believe that by engaging in abrasive and overly aggressive behavior, they endear themselves to their clients and grow their practice by developing the “Rambo” reputation. Unfortunately, their clients fail to realize that their style of lawyering is not effective with judges or juries and that their tactics dramatically increase legal expenses for all parties and generally lead to a less favorable result for the client.

 

The Bench and Bar Committee determined that since attorneys and judges with the greatest need for instruction in professionalism seem to be the least likely to realize it, the shotgun approach to professionalism - which has been helping to address the problem through mandatory CLE, mentoring programs, and professionalism emphasis by the state and local bars - needs to be supplemented with a more focused program. Some would argue that a rifle approach should be used to address these concerns through the use of formal complaints and disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar General Counsel’s office or by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. This approach is problematic in that many times the offending conduct does not violate specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility or of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, since all complaints filed against attorneys with the State Bar General Counsel’s Office and all complaints filed against judges with the Judicial Qualifications Commission must be in writing and signed by the complainant, some legitimate complaints are not asserted out of a concern by the complainant not to become embroiled in the controversy that can follow the filing of such a complaint. Furthermore, if the complainant’s desire is merely to eliminate future misconduct and not to seek formal disciplinary action for past conduct, the filing of a formal complaint is not a viable option.

 

New Approach: Judicial District Professionalism Program

 

In light of the foregoing problems, the Bench and Bar Committee developed a program which focuses on the individual by informally influencing our colleagues to curb unprofessional conduct and to restore public confidence in the bar and the judiciary. This new program which is referred to as the Judicial District Professionalism Program (JDPP) utilizes local peer influence or pressure rather than the threat of formal disciplinary action in an effort to encourage professional and civil behavior.

 

Bar and Supreme Court Approval of Program

 

In seeking to develop the JDPP, the Bench and Bar Committee solicited input from members of the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism, the Council of State Court Judges, the Council of Superior Court Judges, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, the State Bar Executive Committee and the State Bar Board of Governors. The Committee’s work received the support of State Bar Presidents Easterlin, Klein, Cannon, Patterson and Mundy. The Program was submitted to and approved by the State Bar Executive Committee, the State Bar Board of Governors, and ultimately by the Georgia Supreme Court by Order dated February 24, 2000. The Supreme Court adopted Rules governing the operation of the Program which are found at Part XIII of the Rules and Regulations for the Organization and Regulation of the State Bar of Georgia. At the same time, the Supreme Court approved Internal Operating Procedures for the administration of the Program and granted the Bench and Bar Committee of the State Bar the authority to adopt additional Operating Procedures not inconsistent with the Rules.

 

Program Structure

 

The JDPP is operated by ten committees – one from each of Georgia’s ten Judicial Districts. Each Judicial District Professionalism Committee (JDPC) consists of the current members of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Georgia from a particular Judicial District. The JDPC members for each of the Judicial Distrists select one or more judicial advisors within each district. The longest serving member on the Board of Governors serves as the Chair for that District.

 

Each JDPC is authorized to organize itself as it deems appropriate. The Cobb Circuit, which is located in Judicial District #7, met on June 17, 2000 following the Board of Governors meeting and organized itself into the following sub-committees:

At the June 17, 2000 meeting, the 7th District JDPC also voted to utilize the following judges as Judicial Advisors when appropriate: Judge Marion Cummings (Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit), Judge George Kreeger (Cobb Superior Court), Judge Robert James (Douglas Superior Court), and Judge Coy Temples (Conasauga Judicial Circuit).

 

Committee Goals

 

The JDPCs seek to promote traditions of civility and professionalism through increased communication, education, and the informal use of local peer influence to open channels of communication on a voluntary basis. The JDPCs serve the mentor function of providing guidance in “best practices” when approached by lawyers and judges. A JDPC may serve as a mechanism for privately receiving and attempting to resolve inquiries and requests for assistance from lawyers and judges. The program addresses disputes between lawyers and lawyers and disputes between lawyers and judges. The JDPCs can present other creative programs developed and implemented by each committee for their particular Judicial District, such as an annual professionalism award for the member in the local Judicial District who demonstrates the professionalism others should strive to emulate. JDPCs are also encouraged to prepare and publish memorial tributes to local lawyers and judges.

Not Another Disciplinary System

 

The Program operates independently from the disciplinary systems presently in place with the Office of General Counsel and the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The JDPP is informal, private and voluntary rather than formal and mandatory and it does not address the violations of disciplinary rules or violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

JDPP Issues

Inquiries from only lawyers or judges are referred to JDPP. JDPP committees may address the following conduct:

Unprofessional Judicial Conduct:
1. Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a judge;
2. Lack of appropriate respect or deference;
3. Failure to adhere to Uniform Rules;
4. Excessive delay;
5. Consistent lack of preparation; or
6. Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate by each JDPP with the adviceof the Judicial Advisors

Unprofessional Lawyer Conduct:
1. Lack of appropriate respect or deference;
2. Abusive discovery practices;
3. Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a lawyer;
4. Consistent lack of preparation;
5. Communication problems;
6. Deficient practice skills; or
7. Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate by each Judicial District Professionalism Committee.

Matters Not Handled by JDPP
1. Lawyer/client disputes. Inquiries by clients or other members of the public are handled by the Consumer Assistance Program or other appropriate State Bar programs.

 

2. Fee Disputes. These can be handled by the Fee Arbitration Program of the State Bar.

 

3. Employment matters. Example: Managing attorney sexually harasses associates and support staff.

 

4. Lawyer/vendor disputes.

 

5. Disciplinary matters. Example: Lawyer gets a trust account check from opposing counsel that bounces.

 

JDPP Operating Procedure

 

Step 1: Concern or inquiry is reported to: State Bar Executive Director, Cliff Brashier

Any member of the Board of Governors
Consumer Assistance Program Intake Staff

Step 2: Person receiving inquiry and information:

Should route inquiry to CAP for preparation of JDPP Intake Form
May call BOG representative or JDPC Chair of the area where the involved judge/lawyer practices law to discuss inquiry

Step 3: CAP intake staff will:

Assign JDPP inquiry number
Gather Inquiry Intake Form information. Note. This form does not contain the name of any person about whom an inquiry or concern has been expressed.
Place phone call to JDPC Chair to provide name of attorney/judge about whom an inquiry or concern has been expressed
Forward JDPP Inquiry form to JDPC Chair

Step 4: JDPC Chair will either:

Refer inquiry to local sub-committee for handling
Call a meeting to discuss appropriate action based upon nature of inquiry

Step 5: JDPC or sub-committee will determine whether:

Inquiry merits investigation or intervention
Judicial advisor may be consulted depending upon nature of the inquiry

Step 6: If JDPC sub-committee determines further investigation or intervention warranted, meeting with the involved lawyer/judge will be scheduled or sub-committee members and/or Judicial Advisors will be designated to handle

Step 7: If JDPC sub-committee determines no investigation or intervention is warranted inquiry will not be pursued further

Step 8: After resolution of inquiry, JDPP Intake Form will be completed showing how inquiry handled and returned to CAP. This form does not contain the name of any person about whom an inquiry or concern has been expressed

JDPP Confidentiality
All inquiries and proceedings of each JDPC are private. The JDPC and bar staff shall not disclose inquiries and proceedings in the absence of an agreement by the participating parties.

 

JDPC records are kept for statistical purposes only and do not contain the names of any persons about whom inquiries or concern have been expressed. Only file numbers and raw statistical data are maintained. Each JDPC maintains and reports data about the types of matters and inquiries it receives and resolves to the Executive Director of the State Bar, the President of the Council of Superior Court Judges, and Bench and Bar Committee. The purpose for maintaining such records is to identify problems that can be subjects of Continuing Legal Education or Continuing Judicial Education programming and other preventive programs. Information on the results of the JDPC’s efforts will also help determine the program’s effectiveness.

Conclusion

The Judicial District Professionalism Program sends the message that unprofessional tactics are not acceptable and do not work. JDPP exerts peer pressure to reinforce the message over and over again. Judges can make it clear what the expectations of acceptable conduct are from the outset of a case. Judges set the tone in the courtroom; lawyers set the tone with clients and other lawyers. Professional conduct is contagious – we do not have to let the lowest common denominator prevail.