Background
Attorney Serge Jerome, Jr. represented a criminal defendant in the State Court of Coweta County. After Jerome failed to appear for a specially set motions hearing and later missed a 9:00 a.m. status hearing without timely providing proper conflict notices, the trial court ordered him to appear at a show cause hearing on October 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The clerk emailed the order to Jerome.
Jerome was absent when the show cause calendar was called. The trial court held him in direct contempt for failing to appear timely without filing a conflict notice or contacting the court. Jerome arrived about 75 minutes late and explained that he had been dealing with his wife’s illness, had not seen the emailed order because it went to his junk folder, and had first appeared for a guilty plea in another courtroom. After hearing him, the court amended the sanction to a $500 fine or two days in jail if the fine was not timely paid. Jerome appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that an attorney’s failure to appear timely may constitute direct contempt when the absence disrupts court proceedings and interferes with the orderly administration of justice. Summary punishment was permissible because the trial court gave Jerome an opportunity to speak on his own behalf before finalizing the sanction, which supplied the process required for direct contempt.
The appellate court also held that evidence supported a finding of willful disobedience. Jerome acknowledged receiving an email giving notice of the hearing, arrived approximately 75 minutes late, filed no advance conflict notice, and did not contact the court about his unavailability. The trial court was entitled to reject his explanations, particularly because he was in the courthouse that morning but chose to appear in another courtroom first. The court declined to consider Jerome’s race-discrimination claim because the record contained no supporting evidence.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s failure to respond to a calendar call or appear timely can be treated as direct contempt when it disrupts judicial proceedings.
- For summary direct contempt, due process requires an opportunity for the attorney to speak on his or her own behalf, not necessarily a separate evidentiary hearing.
- An appellate court may uphold a contempt finding when any record evidence supports willfulness, and it will not consider discrimination allegations unsupported by the record.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Georgia trial courts’ broad discretion to maintain courtroom order and summarily sanction attorneys whose unexplained or inadequately communicated tardiness disrupts proceedings. Lawyers cannot rely on office calendaring problems, email filtering, or competing courtroom obligations without timely notifying the affected court.
The Court of Appeals also admonished Jerome for unsupported, disparaging allegations against the trial judge and referred him to the State Bar of Georgia to determine whether further disciplinary proceedings were warranted.