O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-6-5 (2019)

Restrictions on practice of law

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Following their election, the judges of the superior courts are prohibited from practicing law in any of the courts of this state, provided that they may practice until their qualification in any case in which they may have been actually employed before their election. They are also prohibited from practicing as attorneys, proctors, or solicitors in any district or circuit courts of the United States after their election or while in commission.

History

Laws 1824, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 90; Laws 1843, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 91; Code 1863, § 235; Code 1868, § 229; Code 1873, § 239; Code 1882, § 239; Civil Code 1895, § 4313;

Civil Code 1910, § 4837; Code 1933, § 24-2607.

Annotations

Cross references. - Regulation of practice of law generally, § 15-19-50 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Judge of superior court subject to disbarment proceedings. - That a lawyer is also a judge of the superior court

and hence a constitutional officer and must have practiced law seven years at the time of the judge’s election and is

prohibited from practicing law while serving as judge does not mean that the judge cannot at the same time be disbarred and the judge’s license to practice law canceled as provided in former Code 1933, Ch. 5, T. 9 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-19-30 et seq.). The two proceedings are provided for the accomplishment of entirely different re-

sults. Gordon v. Clinkscales, 215 Ga. 843, 114 S.E.2d 15 (1960). Cited in Deutz-Allis Credit Corp. v. Phillips, 183 Ga. App. 760, 360 S.E.2d 29 (1987); Seay v. Cleveland, 270 Ga. 64, 508 S.E.2d 159 (1998); Miller v. Lomax, 333 Ga. App. 402, 773 S.E.2d 475 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Duties of district attorney constitute practice of law. - Although a solicitor general (now district attorney) has only the state for a client in the performance of public duties, the solicitor gen-

eral (now district attorney) is necessarily a ‘‘partisan in the cases’’ when appearing on behalf of the state; these duties do constitute the practice of law. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-189.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judges, § 46. C.J.S. - 48A C.J.S., Judges, § 48. ALR. - What amounts to practice of law within contemplation of constitutional or statutory provision which makes such practice a condition of eligibility to a judicial office or forbids it by one holding a judicial position, 106 A.L.R. 508.

Propriety and permissibility of judge engaging in practice of law, 89 A.L.R.2d 886. Validity and application of state statute prohibiting judge from practicing law, 17 A.L.R.4th 829.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2015 · leading case: Coffey v. Brooks Cnty., 500 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
Coffey v. Brooks Cnty., 500 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “2d 476 , recognized that the sheriff individually lacked sovereign immunity in his own name because he is not a subdivision of the state or an agency: "In conclusion, [the sheriff] may not claim the benefit of [the deputy's] official immunity defense.”
Massey v. State, 458 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “[7] See OCGA §§ 15-6-5; 15-7-21(b). [8] See OCGA § 15-7-21(b) (prohibiting part-time state court judges from practicing in their own court or in any matter where they have exercised jurisdiction); OCGA § 15-10-22(b) (prohibiting magistrates who are attorneys from practicing in…”
Miller Et Al. v. Lomax Et Al., 773 S.E.2d 475 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-6-5; Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5 F.”
Bulloch Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Georgia Dep't of Educ. (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court holding that an action on a sheriff’s bond under OCGA § 15-6-5 was “an action ex contractu as to which sovereign immunity is 2 The sole decision cited by the District on appeal for its contention that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.