Former State Bar presidents decries Supreme Court candidates suing state judicial watchdog

A Marietta attorney who formerly served as president of the State Bar of Georgia is speaking out after two Georgia Supreme Court justice candidates filed a motion to seal documents in an ongoing lawsuit against a state agency charged with enforcing ethical standards for judges.

The candidates - Jen Jordan and ShaMiracle Rankin, who are challenging incumbents Sarah Hawkins Warren and Charlie Bethel - filed a lawsuit at the end of April against the Judicial Qualifications Commission, an independent state body that investigates complaints of misconduct, incapacity and wrongdoing by judges and judicial candidates. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

Rankin and Jordan filed an emergency motion to have the documents sealed on April 30. The pair argued they are sealing the documents to prevent irreparable harm to their campaigns for Georgia Supreme Court.

Robert Ingram, who served as state bar president from 2005 to 2006 and runs Marietta-based law firm Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, put out a statement Thursday decrying the action. He said the sealing of the documents wrongly deprives the public of access to the records, an essential component of a functioning court system.

"Courts rarely allow civil lawsuits to be sealed against this presumption of public access," Ingram wrote in his statement, which was co-signed by Ben Easterlin, another former state bar president who also served as chair of the judicial watchdog. "This principle is especially critical when the rules at issue are the standards of ethical conduct for the very people tasked with interpreting the laws - judges."

Due to the sealing, the Marietta Daily Journal was unable to obtain a copy of Jordan and Rankin's lawsuit.

A lawsuit against the Judicial Qualifications Commission by a candidate isn't unprecedented.

In 2024, Georgia Supreme Court candidate John Barrow sued the commission after it accused him of violating judicial ethics for signaling how he would likely vote on abortion rights issues likely to come before the court.

Barrow argued the move chilled his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was dismissed, with a judge ruling Barrow had not shown evidence that he censored himself.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.