Appeals candidates spar in debate
McGuire and Adkins discount importance of bar poll and challenge each other in sharp exchange
By Jonathan Ringel, Managing Editor, Daily Report

As the seven candidates for an open appeals court post debated their qualifications Monday, the two lawyers who received the lowest ratings in a recent poll of Georgia lawyers rejected the poll's importance.

“God help us if the lawyers start electing judges in this state,” said Perry J. McGuire, who was deemed “not qualified” for the Court of Appeals by 446 lawyers who voted in the Georgia Bar's recent poll of its members.

McGuire, a former Republican state senator who practices with Taylor, Busch, Slipakoff & Duma, said he didn't even know 400 lawyers in the state, and they didn't know him.

Tamela L. Adkins, a Gwinnett County family law practitioner whose 396 “not qualified” votes in the bar poll were second to McGuire, was pressed on her lack of support in the poll by candidate Bruce M. Edenfield. He received 1,000 “well-qualified” votes, plus the highest number of “qualified” votes (565) and the least “not qualified” votes (59).

“How can you seriously say you're the most qualified” for the judgeship, Edenfield asked Adkins during the debate.

Adkins shot back that only about 10 percent of the state's lawyers responded to the poll, which she called “a popularity contest.”

Edenfield's late father was a judge, his cousin is a judge and another cousin is a recent past president of the bar, and Adkins seemed to suggest this might account for Edenfield's higher profile among lawyers. The lawyers who responded to the poll, she said, “don't know my work,” which she described as helping families and children.

McGuire and Adkins engaged in one of the few moments of tension in the 60-minute debate, which was organized by the Atlanta Press Club and held in a studio at Georgia Public Broadcasting.

McGuire asked whether “a question of honesty” about Adkins came up with regard to her answers to a questionnaire from the Daily Report that asked each candidate whether he or she had been sued by clients.

Adkins initially told the newspaper that she had not been sued by a client, but a search of records in Gwinnett County courts showed she had been sued by a former client who wanted his fee refunded. A magistrate judge awarded the plaintiff $579.

Adkins told the newspaper that she did not disclose the suit because she likely was thinking the question asked about malpractice suits—not fee disputes.

On Monday, Adkins said McGuire's assertion was “absolutely untrue.”

Most of the debate was cordial, with candidates often agreeing with each other about the importance of being impartial and following the law.

Some differences were apparent among the candidates, however.

Adkins twice cited her experience representing children and families as filling a need on the court.

“Children and families deserve a voice on the Court of Appeals,” she said.

Other candidates noted that serving as a judge would be different than advocating a legal or legislative position. As a judge, said state Sen. Michael S. Meyer von Bremen, a partner in the Albany office of Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, “You're serving the law, not constituents.”

McGuire, whose campaign said this week it had purchased time to air a radio ad describing him as a “pro-family conservative,” was asked how that philosophy would affect his rulings on the bench.

While McGuire said he wanted voters to know that “I am like them,” he added that being a pro-family conservative “doesn't have any bearing” on how he would rule.

Edenfield, an Atlanta litigator, said later that placing labels of “liberal” or “conservative” on candidates is “really just trying to pander to the public.” In an earlier interview with the Daily Report, Edenfield identified himself as a conservative.

Gwinnett County criminal defense lawyer Michael M. Sheffield said, “I'm not sure judges should have a judicial philosophy,” because they should keep an open mind about a case.

Decatur lawyer Christopher McFadden, the only full-time appellate practitioner running for the appeals court seat, said he would like to be known as a “judicial minimalist,” meaning he would not overreach in his decisions.

McFadden noted several times that he had handled more appeals than any of the other candidates and had “written the book” on appellate practice—a book Meyer von Bremen said he had consulted before cases.

But Meyer von Bremen and Holland & Knight partner Sara L. Doyle argued that trial-level experience was just as important as appellate experience.

Doyle said she'd “issue fair, reasonable and consistent” opinions.

The candidates took questions from a panel of journalists: Nwandi Lawson of Georgia Public Broadcasting's “Lawmakers” program; Alyson M. Palmer of the Daily Report and Jake Armstrong of Morris News Service. The debate was moderated by Helen Neill of WGCL.