•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

5-7-2026

Document Type

Casenote

Abstract

Potts v. Richardson marks a turning point in Georgia’s professionalism movement. On its face, the case involved an application of Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute and the privilege afforded to communications made in connection with judicial proceedings. But the Court of Appeals of Georgia did more than resolve a defamation dispute. By imposing a $2,500 sanction under Rule 7(e) for what the court deemed a frivolous appeal, it in effect sanctioned a lawyer for conduct that violated the Georgia Lawyer’s Creed and Aspirational Statement on Professionalism.

Georgia has been a leader in the modern professionalism movement for decades. Central to that commitment is the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism, established in 1989 by the Supreme Court of Georgia, “with the primary charge to enhance professionalism among Georgia’s lawyers.” Over the years, the Commission developed CLE courses, supported orientation programs for law students, and produced the Lawyer’s Creed and Aspirational Statement on Professionalism as the foundational documents of professionalism in Georgia. These texts urge lawyers to treat clients, adversaries, and courts with courtesy and respect, but they are explicitly framed as aspirational. Justice Benham, in his concurrences in Evanoff v. Evanoff and Butts v. State, captured this distinction, reminding the bar that “ethics is that which is required and professionalism is that which is expected,” and warned that, when professionalism is left to aspiration alone, “blind and unbridled advocacy” corrodes public confidence in the courts.

Potts illustrates that Georgia courts are beginning to close the gap between these aspirational ideals and enforceable standards. By deploying Rule 7(e) sanctions sua sponte, the court of appeals treated Potts’s lack of civility not merely as regrettable but as sanctionable misconduct. Judge Hodges’s concurrence sharpened this point, casting Potts’s conduct as a cautionary tale about how easily incivility can escalate into abusive litigation that ultimately drains judicial resources and undermines the dignity of the profession.

This Casenote examines more than an anti-SLAPP dispute. The court of appeals’s decision in Potts v. Richardson, reinforced by Judge Hodges’s concurrence, reflects Georgia’s longstanding commitment to professionalism while marking a decisive shift in how that commitment is enforced. Though the professionalism movement once relied on aspirational statements and cultural expectations, Potts represents something new by showing that courts are more willing to impose consequences when lawyers disregard civility. Potts stands as a turning point in Georgia’s professionalism movement, signaling that civility is no longer merely encouraged but enforceable.

Download

Share

COinS