Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State
317 Ga. App. 118
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- In July 2010, the DA appointed Lambros and Cohilas as special assistant district attorneys to pursue Georgia RICO forfeiture claims against Moultrie convenience stores.
- Their contract promised fees of at least one-third of gross recoveries for the State, including the fair market value of property recovered.
- The State filed in rem forfeiture against gaming machines and in personam claims against R & R Quick Mart and Pushpa Patel for alleged RICO violations.
- Appellant moved to disqualify the two SASs, contending improper appointment, public-policy-era-fee structure, and constitutional issues; trial court denied.
- Georgia Supreme Court transferred and reversed, holding the contingency-fee contract void as against Georgia public policy.
- The court emphasized that public prosecutors must avoid financial arrangements that create conflicts of interest or undermine impartial justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the DA have authority to appoint SAS for this matter? | Greater Georgia argues no authority to appoint SAS for a specific case. | State argues OCGA 15-18-20 allows such appointment in this matter. | Yes; DA had authority to appoint SAS for this case. |
| Does the contingency-fee contract violate Georgia public policy? | Contingency fee arrangement permissible under prior practice. | Public policy forbids private financial stake by public prosecutors in case results. | The contingency-fee arrangement is void as against public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529 (Ga. 2001) (public prosecutor's duty to seek justice, not profit, supports rejection of private financial stake)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Parsons, 260 Ga. 824 (Ga. 1991) (contingency fees for public services violate public policy)
- Patel v. State of Ga., 289 Ga. 479 (Ga. 2011) (forfeiture actions disfavored; public policy concerns about equity)
- Pabey v. State of Ga., 262 Ga. App. 272 (Ga. App. 2003) (public policy concerns in state enforcement actions)
- State v. Cook, 172 Ga. App. 433 (Ga. App. 1984) (DA may hire SAS in specific case; statute does not strictly bar such appointments)