On Friday, November 15, 2024, the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) of Georgia granted a request from Director Courtney Veal to withhold two memos from Judge Shermela Williams during ongoing proceedings related to a complaint against her.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Shermela William,” with case number S24Z1139.
The investigation against Judge Williams stems from formal ethics charges brought by Veal in June. The accusations include engaging in ex parte communications during a pending case, delaying resolutions in family court matters by not issuing timely final orders, and failing to maintain impartiality in child custody decisions. These allegations are associated with three complaints filed against Judge Williams with the JQC between 2022 and 2023, concerning her handling of at least eight cases since taking office in 2021.
The decision to withhold the memos followed a discovery dispute in which Director Veal sought to prevent the disclosure of documents prepared for the JQC’s Investigative Panel. The memos in question were created by an investigator under Veal’s direction and contained summaries of witness statements obtained in anticipation of litigation. Veal argued that the documents were protected under the work product doctrine, which shields certain materials from disclosure in legal proceedings.
The Presiding Officer of the Hearing Panel conducted an in-camera review of the withheld memos and subsequently held a remote conference where both parties presented their arguments. Judge Williams contended that the JQC Rules do not recognize the work product doctrine and claimed that Veal’s withholding of the memos was improper. In contrast, Veal maintained that the documents should remain undisclosed based on established legal protections.
The JQC’s ruling emphasized that the memos fell under the category of witness statements and summaries related to the investigation. According to JQC Rule 22, parties are required to produce non-privileged evidence relevant to the formal charges, but the memos were determined to be protected by a qualified privilege due to their preparatory nature for potential litigation.
The Hearing Panel referenced prior cases where the work product doctrine had been applied, noting that similar materials had previously been exempted from disclosure. The decision highlighted the importance of allowing attorneys to prepare their cases without undue interference from opposing parties, aligning with judicial principles aimed at promoting justice and protecting clients’ interests.
In the ruling, the Hearing Panel concluded that the memos were not discoverable under JQC Rule 22 (B). They ordered that the documents be filed under seal, accessible only upon further order from the Presiding Officer or the Supreme Court of Georgia. This measure ensures that sensitive information remains confidential as the proceedings continue.
The presiding officer’s order also established that the current situation did not trigger the need for disclosure under subsections C and D of JQC Rule 22, as the memos were not deemed exculpatory. Should any witness testify inconsistently with the contents of the memos, however, the disclosure requirement could change.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
