On Saturday, June 7, 2025, Fulton County Judge Shermela J. Williams filed a formal reply in support of her motion to quash the formal charges brought against her by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) of Georgia. This response addresses the allegations and procedural issues surrounding the case, which is currently before the Supreme Court of Georgia.

The motion to quash the charges stems from several complaints against Judge Williams, including JQC Complaint Nos. 2022-102, 2023-223, and 2023-348, as well as additional complaints filed under Docket No. S25Z0722. Judge Williams contends that the formal charges against her are tainted by conflicts of interest and violations of judicial conduct standards by members of the JQC’s Investigative Panel.

In her reply, Judge Williams argues that the Director’s response fails to adequately address concerns regarding the appearance of impropriety and fundamental due process violations. She specifically cites the involvement of Judges Stacey Hydrick and T. Scott Darrisaw, who were part of the Investigative Panel but allegedly failed to disclose their public support and financial contributions to Judge Williams’s political opponent, Judge Reider. Judge Williams asserts that their actions compromise the integrity of the JQC’s proceedings.

According to the filing, Judges Hydrick and Darrisaw were bound by the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct at all times, and their non-disclosure of conflicts undermines the impartiality expected in judicial reviews. Judge Williams points out that the Canons of Judicial Ethics mandate judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, which she claims was not upheld in her case.

The reply also addresses the issue of timeliness raised by the Director. Judge Williams maintains that the motion is not untimely, as the Presiding Officer of the Hearing Panel has the discretion to allow motions beyond the established deadlines. She emphasizes that the failure of the Investigative Panel to disclose pertinent information impeded her ability to respond promptly, thereby affecting her rights.

Furthermore, Judge Williams clarifies that her motion seeks the dismissal of charges rather than the recusal of the judges involved. She argues that the Investigative Panel did not have a proper quorum for voting on the formal charges against her due to the alleged disqualifications of Judges Hydrick and Darrisaw. The absence of these judges would invalidate any decisions made regarding her case, according to JQC rules.

In her formal reply, Judge Williams requests an evidentiary hearing to further explore the relationships and contributions of Judges Hydrick and Darrisaw, as well as their roles in the deliberative process regarding the formal charges. She states that a thorough examination of these relationships is essential for ensuring a fair and unbiased adjudication of the complaints against her.

Judge Williams has consistently argued that the process leading to the formal charges was flawed and unfair, emphasizing her right to a fair trial as guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions. She contends that the actions of the Investigative Panel not only violated judicial conduct rules but also compromised the integrity of the entire disciplinary process.

The case is of significant interest not only to Judge Williams but also to other judges facing JQC complaints, as it raises questions about the standards of conduct expected from judicial members serving on investigatory panels. The outcome of this motion could have broader implications for judicial accountability and the enforcement of ethical standards within the Georgia judiciary.

As the proceedings continue, Judge Williams’s legal team remains focused on securing a fair resolution to the formal charges against her, maintaining that the integrity of the judicial process must be upheld.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.