Inquiry Concerning Peters, 289 Ga. 633

JQC investigated alleged misconduct by Catoosa County Magistrate Judge Anthony Peters after complaints including from Chief Magistrate Judge Caldwell.
Peters appeared before the JQC on October 28, 2010 to discuss the allegations and JQC filed formal charges seeking permanent removal and bar from judicial office.
A JQC hearing on the charges occurred April 14-15, 2011, where multiple Canon 2 violations and a Canon 3(B)(1) violation were found, along with Canon 1 misconduct.
Findings included: weekly marijuana use (Canon 2), using judicial office to aid a family member (Canon 2), pointing a firearm and threatening conduct (Canon 2), disparaging remarks on TV and exposing a confidential informant (Canon 2), threatening language on a radio show with a sheriff (Canon 2/3), and refusing assigned hours (Canon 3(B)(1)).
The Court reviewed the JQC record using a clear and convincing proof standard to determine if removal was warranted, ultimately concluding Peters violated Canons 1-3 and bringing the judiciary into disrepute.
The Georgia Supreme Court permanently removed Peters from office and barred him from holding or seeking any judicial office in Georgia, effective immediately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peters violated the Code of Judicial Conduct	JQC findings support Canon 1-3 violations.	Peters disputes credibility and argues discipline was sufficient.	Yes; record establishes Canons 1-3 violations and disrepute.
What standard governs appellate review of JQC findings	Court should defer but review for clear and convincing proof.	Peters contends different standard should apply or deference undercut credibility.	Court applies clear and convincing standard to review JQC findings.
Whether the conduct constitutes prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting removal	Misconduct erodes public trust and justifies removal.	Discipline already imposed and probationary measures were sufficient.	Yes; conduct is prejudicial and warrants permanent removal.
Whether failure to seek treatment mitigates punishment	Lack of treatment shows ongoing risk and supports removal.	Discipline should reflect rehabilitation, not automatic removal.	No; failure to seek treatment does not excuse or mitigate for removal.

Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 275 Ga. 404 (Ga. 2002) (Court reviews JQC findings using clear and convincing standard)