MEDIA ARTICLE: Florida Supreme Court overturns reprimand for Orange County judge (Yahoo News, 7-23-26)

Florida Supreme Court overturns reprimand for Orange County judge

Jake Jordan

Thu, July 23, 2026 at 1:36 PM EDT

2 min read

An Orange County judge won't face a public reprimand after the Florida Supreme Court decided not to punish him for court comments and treatment of two public defenders.

On Thursday, the court unanimously overturned the Judicial Qualifications Commission's (JQC) recommendation for Judge John Jordan III to receive a public reprimand. The court did not provide a reason for its decision and instead returned the case to the JQC for additional review.

The case involves two incidents from 2025.

In one case, Jordan was handling a battery case involving a 33-year-old Black woman. While talking with the woman's great-uncle about possible community service, the judge asked if the family owned farmland where she could work. He then asked if the man had ever "chopped cotton," explaining it as using a hoe to pull weeds and saying that kind of work would "straighten you up real quick."

The comments later became part of a judicial misconduct complaint.

The second incident happened during jury selection in another case. According to disciplinary records, Jordan repeatedly told two public defenders to "shut up" after they complained he was rushing the process.

When attorneys asked for a mistrial because of his behavior, Jordan first denied the request but later declared a mistrial himself and said another judge would take over the case.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission said Jordan's actions violated Florida's rules requiring judges to act professionally and treat everyone in the courtroom with respect.

The commission also noted that Jordan had never been disciplined before, admitted his behavior was wrong, expressed remorse, and agreed to accept a public reprimand.

Jordan has served on Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit Court since 2011 after being appointed by former Gov. Rick Scott. Before that, he served as an Orange County judge beginning in 2005. He was reelected without opposition in both 2014 and 2020.

The disciplinary case will now return to the Judicial Qualifications Commission for further action.

Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/florida-supreme-court-overturns-reprimand-173656066.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Add Yahoo as a preferred

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: Formal Opinion 524: Government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s intended or ongoing violation of law (ABA, 7-22-26)

 Formal Opinion 524: Government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s intended or ongoing violation of law

July 22, 2026

CHICAGO, July 22, 2026 — The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion today addressing when the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13(b) and (c) may be implicated for a lawyer representing the government who knows of a government officer’s or employee’s violation of a legal obligation to the government organization or violation of law.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13(b) and (c) guide lawyers employed or retained by an organization when they know of intended or ongoing violations of law or other legal obligations by representatives of the organization that, depending on the circumstances, are likely or reasonably certain to result in “substantial injury to the organization.” 

Opinion 524 says lawyers representing the government should look to those provisions when they know of an intended or ongoing violation of a legal obligation to their government organization client, or a violation of law by representatives of that client, that would be “imputed” to the organization and is likely or reasonably certain to result in “substantial injury to the organization.”

A violation of a legal obligation or law by an officer or employee of a government organization will be “imputed” to the organization if that government representative is using or misusing authority they possess by virtue of their position with the government. 

A violation of a legal obligation or law by a government officer or employee that would be imputed to their organization will cause “injury to the organization” within the meaning of Model Rules 1.13(b) and (c), given the government’s obligation to support, defend and promote the rule of law. The government lawyer should exercise reasonable judgment regarding whether that injury is “substantial.”

If a lawyer representing a governmental organization knows that its officer or employee, acting on behalf of the governmental organization client, intends to violate or is violating a legal obligation to the organization or is violating the law, that violation would be imputed to the organization. 

If the resulting injury to the organization is likely to be “substantial,” the lawyer must “proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization” under Rule 1.13(b). 

Depending on the circumstances, this will likely require the government lawyer to “refer the matter to higher authority in the organization” and, if that fails to elicit an adequate response, to the organization’s “highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined with regard to applicable law.”

If, despite the lawyer’s efforts in this situation, the higher authority fails to adequately address what is “clearly a violation of law,” the government lawyer may, under Rule 1.13(c), reveal the information to an appropriate authority outside the government organizational “but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization.”

It is important to emphasize that Rule 1.13 is only one potential source of a disclosure obligation for government lawyers. Government lawyers may have other disclosure obligations under other provisions of the Model Rules. 

They also may have contractual obligations or other employment obligations established by the organization’s policies and rules, as well as legal obligations established by relevant regulations and statutes.

Government organizations have a significant interest in the fair administration of justice and in protecting and preserving the rule of law. 

The government must set an example by complying with the legal obligations, even seemingly minor ones, that apply to it. 

The credibility of government depends on its own compliance with the law, and the rule of law presupposes that no one, and no organization, is above the law. 

For these reasons and more, a violation of law that is imputed to the government organization — in other words, government lawbreaking or lawlessness — causes injury not only to any third parties who are victims of the violation, but also to the public’s trust in government and, ultimately, to the government organization itself.

The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available here.

 

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: Another Georgia cop accused of misusing Flock data in growing trend (USA TODAY, 7-21-26)

 

Another Georgia cop accused of misusing Flock data in growing trend

Irene Wright

USA TODAY

July 21, 2026, 10:22 a.m. ET

A DeKalb County deputy accused of misusing Flock Safety camera data adds to a growing list of law enforcement officers charged with violating their oath.

Sgt. Kabiru Salawu, a 17-year veteran of the agency, was fired and arrested for unauthorized use of Flock license plate reader technology, the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office announced Friday.

The agency said the misuse was identified during an internal probe, and Salawu was immediately terminated following the discovery. Salawu was charged with misuse of license plate data and felony violation of oath of office.

"The public expects and deserves integrity from every member of the agency," Sheriff Melody Maddox said in a statement. 

"The misuse of law enforcement technology or confidential information for any unauthorized purpose is a serious breach of the public's trust and will not be tolerated. 

When misconduct is identified, we act swiftly, hold those responsible accountable, and remain committed to the highest ethical standards."

The agency did not release which data Salawu accessed or for what purpose.

DeKalb deputy adds to concerning trend in Georgia

The arrest of the DeKalb deputy adds to a growing list of law enforcement officials who have been caught abusing the license plate data they have been given access to and tasked with protecting.

Earlier in July, five officers with the Albany Police Department were accused of using Flock camera data for personal searches, according to a Georgia Bureau of Investigation report. 

The police department requested GBI when an internal audit exposed the misuse. The officers were charged with misuse of license plate data and violation of oath of office.

Tytianna Davis, 27, faces six counts, Jade Jackson, 32, faces three counts, Nicholas Richardson, 30, faces 12 counts, Brittney Smith, 23, faces two counts, and Issac Whitus, 24, faces three counts, and all were terminated by Albany Police.

Four officers in Richmond County have faced the same charges in recent weeks, along with three police officers in Fayetteville, a deputy in Greene County and three deputies in Cherokee County.

It brings the total arrests of law enforcement for license plate misuses in Georgia to 17 in the past few months.

Flock camera data leads to arrest in DeKalb

At the same time the data is being misused by law enforcement, it is still leading to arrests in the same communities.

DeKalb County Police responded to a shots fired call in a parking lot near Martins Crossing and Hemingway Road on the afternoon of May 18, and found a woman who had been shot in her vehicle, according to a Flock Safety news release on July 20.

The woman had been shot multiple times and tried to drive away before crashing a short distance later. She was pronounced dead on the scene.

Flock Safety says the company's cameras in DeKalb County were used to identify the alleged shooter's vehicle, and it was then tracked to a nearby street. The vehicle was approached by SWAT and the shooter was apprehended without further incident.

"Cases like this reflect how Flock's technology is designed to work: giving investigators real leads quickly while upholding rigorous standards for privacy and responsible use," the company said.

Flock says audit system is working as intended

Flock Safety, and Atlanta-based company, issued a statement following the arrest of the Albany officers, saying the case proves their system works to hold law enforcement accountable.

"According to public reporting and investigators, Flock's audit records played a key role in identifying and documenting the unauthorized searches," according to the statement. 

"While the incident has prompted renewed discussion about public safety technology, Flock believes it demonstrates the importance of designing systems with accountability built in."

The company says the Flock system records who accesses information, when the search was conducted, what information was gathered and what case is associated with the information search, making it clear when a search was not directly tied to investigative work.

"Technology doesn't create misconduct. People do," Paige Todd, co-founder of Flock Safety, said in the statement. "The question isn't whether someone will attempt to misuse technology. The question is whether the technology is designed to expose that misuse and help agencies hold bad actors accountable."

In recorded comments sent to USA TODAY from Flock Safety, company co-founder and CEO Garrett Langley called the recent arrests "disappointing," but they show anyone using license plate readers "should be held accountable."

"We heard from customers loud and clear, we heard from communities loud and clear, Flock should do more. There should be more responsibility, more accountability built in," Langley said, applauding the company's recently launched internal audit program.

"The way the audit assistance tool works is very similar to how your bank account when you log in from a new city when you're traveling says 'hey, I want to double check who you are.' 

It's not saying that you've done something wrong, it's just saying that this is abnormal," Langley said. "(The tool) is flagging potential abnormal activity so that in an audit review you can know where to start."

Langley said the company has built in accountability since it's inception nine years ago, but it has been "more effective than anyone expected."

Opponents say Flock cameras come at a cost

Opponents of the Flock Camera technology say even with the arrests, the expansion of the cameras both in Georgia and across the country comes at too high a cost.

DeFlock Atlanta, a group that focuses on "4th amendment privacy and ALPR awareness" in Atlanta, places signs underneath Flock Cameras that alert drivers their "movements have just been logged into a private, searchable database," according to the signs. 

The group states that profiles are created on vehicles and their drivers whether they are committing a crime or not, and that once the cameras are in place in your community there is no going back.

DeFlock, a national organization, says automated license plate readers (ALPRs or LPRs) are "AI-powered cameras that capture and analyze images of all passing vehicles, storing details like your car's location, date, and time" and collect the data (which includes identifying details like dents or bumper stickers) "regardless or whether the driver is suspected of a crime."

"These systems are marketed as indispensable tools to fight crime, but they ignore the powerful tools police already have to track criminals, such as cell phone data, creating a loophole that doesn't require a warrant," the organization alleges. 

The group opposes a wide variety of ALPRs, but notes Flock Safety is the largest ALPR vendor in the United States, and is used not only by law enforcement but also private businesses and homeowners associations.

Data from Flock Cameras are also uploaded to the company's cloud system, which DeFlock says can be used to search and share data across multiple jurisdictions or between Flock customers.

Officials in Barrow County are investigating felony vandalism of Flock cameras as distrust of the technology grows across the state. 

Aside from individual citizens concerned about their own data, communities also worry the data could be accessed by government organizations like ICE and used to track and ambush immigrants in their neighborhoods, or to keep tabs on their community.

"We support over 7,000 law enforcement agencies, over a million crimes a year. Our responsibility to safeguard that technology has gone up," Langley said.

Irene Wright is the Atlanta Connect reporter with USA Today’s Deep South Connect team. Find her on X @IreneEWright or email her at ismith@usatodayco.com.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/state/georgia/atlanta/2026/07/21/veteran-atlanta-deputy-adds-to-growing-list-of-ga-cops-misusing-flock/90992565007/

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: ‘Appalled.’ FWC looks at its critics’ info in database meant for criminal probes By David Goodhue Updated July 18, 2026 10:20 AM (The Miami Herald, 7-18-26)

The Miami Herald confirmed that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employees pulled 12 people’s records multiple times since 2023 and almost always cited ‘criminal investigation’ as the reason. Scott Berson

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 

‘Appalled.’ FWC looks at its critics’ info in database meant for criminal probes By David Goodhue Updated July 18, 2026 10:20 AM

By David Goodhue

Updated July 18, 2026 10:20 AM

A group of citizens with a history of criticizing the state agency that enforces conservation laws and boater safety recently discovered that agency employees have been pulling sensitive personal information about them from a state database designated for police to use in criminal investigations.

The Miami Herald confirmed that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employees pulled 12 people’s records multiple times since 2023 and almost always cited “criminal investigation” as the reason.

The records were in the Driver and Vehicle Information Database, known as DAVID. The system contains people’s driving records and other sensitive information like their Social Security numbers, medical disability records, addresses, signatures and emergency contacts. 

Only authorized people, usually law-enforcement officers, can pull DAVID records, and there needs to be an official reason to do so. 

In the section of the form explaining the reason for pulling the data from 12 activists’ DAVID files, the FWC employees stated: “Criminal Investigation,” according to Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reports seen by the Miami Herald. 

The employees who have conducted the searches all work as criminal intelligence analysts for the FWC. “I am totally appalled. To be under criminal investigation because we are advocating for the environment is outrageous,” said Sandra Moise, a 60-year-old educator who has long advocated for a variety of environmental causes, especially for the rookery of Biscayne Bay. 

Like the other activists whose DAVID files have been accessed by FWC, Moise has also been critical of the way FWC’s seven commissioners are appointed by the governor, saying the group prioritized development interests over conservation of natural resources.

Another activist discovered that the FWC had pulled his DAVID file, citing a criminal investigation. After finding out his records were accessed, he told other activists, who requested information on who pulled their DAVID records from the Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and that’s how Moise and others learned they also were being looked into by FWC. 

“I was shocked. It’s rather nerve-wracking to learn you’re under criminal investigation, and you’re not sure why you’re being investigated,” Moise said. 

“It’s a violation of our First Amendment rights. They’ve clearly crossed the line.” 

When the Miami Herald asked FWC why the agency was using DAVID to check the activists’ records, a spokesperson responded with an email saying it was done to protect participants at commission meetings and staff at FWC offices. 

“The FWC welcomes and values feedback from stakeholders at its public meetings. The FWC Division of Law Enforcement is committed to anticipating potential threats, continuously monitoring safety and security conditions, and implementing appropriate measures to provide a safe, secure, and orderly environment for all participants at public meetings and for employees, visitors, and other occupants of any FWC facility.”

Col. Alberto Maza, FWC’s director of law enforcement, told the Miami Herald that none of the activists was under criminal investigation, and that the people’s records were pulled as a precaution for the safety of FWC employees and anyone else attending meetings. 

“We would have been interviewing these people and talking to them, and we haven’t,” Maza said. 

He said that because the analysts categorized the reason for checking DAVID as “criminal investigation,” the search confirmation was “taken out of context.” 

Maza said the agency is looking into whether officers and analysts have more options to categorize searches other than saying they are for a criminal investigation. 

Moe DeWitt is an Orlando personal injury attorney who successfully litigated cases that involved DAVID abuse and helped lead to a law overhauling access to the system five years ago. 

He said anyone searching it must have a legitimate reason to do so. Speaking out at meetings or posting non-threatening comments on social media doesn’t qualify, DeWitt said.

“It all boils down to whether it’s a legitimate criminal investigation, and it sounds like it’s probably not,” DeWitt said.

Many of the activists whose records were searched opposed Florida’s approval of a hunt for bears. Barb Elkin Getty Images/iStockphoto Other than Moise, the other people confirmed to have been searched through DAVID by the FWC were critics of the state’s controversial bear hunt, which was approved by commissioners last August.

The activists packed FWC meetings leading up to the vote and subsequent meetings deciding the rules of the one-month hunt — the first in Florida since 2015. There were also social-media groups that hounded commissioners and sought to sink the hunt. 

Rodney Barreto, chairman of the FWC, told the Miami Herald that while no one whose information was accessed by the agency is under criminal investigation, commissioners received threats, some violent, during the course of the bear-hunt debate, so some people who signed up to speak at the meetings were checked. 

“When people sign up to speak, their names are checked,” Barreto said. “That’s all.” In the end, 172 permits were allocated to hunters, who killed 52 bears in December, according to the FWC’s website. Katrina Shadix, 58, who grew up hunting with her uncle in the Orlando area, was among the most outspoken critics of the hunt, calling it a “callous” way of trimming the state’s bear population.

Shadix found out last month that FWC had searched her DAVID information 17 times between 2023 and 2025. 

In almost all of the searches, FWC employees cited she was under criminal investigation, according to the Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles report obtained by the Herald. In October 2025, an FWC employee used the system to search Shadix’s vehicle, her photograph and signature and her driver’s license transaction data, according to the report. 

“I was shocked. It leveled up my concern for my safety regarding what the FWC was willing to do to silence me,” Shadix told the Herald. “They’re willing to break the law to silence their opposition who are trying to speak truth to power.” 

Bruce Rogow, a constitutional-law attorney and founding professor of the Nova Southeastern University of Law Center, said looking into someone’s information that is already public record might have been acceptable for FWC to have done. But using a database to get otherwise private details is not. 

“What is under public records searches is one thing. ... Digging deeper is quite another, and a government agency doesn’t have a fishing license to delve without a strong reason into private information,” Rogow said.

The man who first discovered FWC was pulling activists’ DAVID files is Brent Fannin, who has been leading a movement to reform the way commissioners are appointed by the governor, aiming to require more candidates to have backgrounds in science and the environment. Fannin, 38, helped write a bill that has been stalled in the Legislature for the past two sessions and would “revise the composition” of the FWC’s commissioners. 

This session, the bill died in March in the state Senate’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee. He told the Herald that after finding out that FWC was accessing his DAVID records, he was concerned, but not surprised. “It’s just kind of blowing my mind that they are so confident they can get away with anything they want, that they are willing to abuse their power to surveil a bunch of Instagramers,” Fannin said. 

This story was originally published July 18, 2026 at 5:30 AM.

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article316549333.html#storylink=cpy

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: Georgia Supreme Court opens RICO law to domestic disputes (USA Today/Capitol Beat News Service, 7-8-26)

Georgia Supreme Court opens RICO law to domestic disputes

Ty Tagami

Capitol Beat News Service

July 8, 2026, 4:04 a.m. ET

• KEY POINTS:
• This decision reverses a lower court's ruling that the law, originally for organized crime, did not apply to such cases.
• Legal experts believe this preserves a powerful tool to enforce consequences for fraudulent actions in family law.
• The case involves a woman who sued her ex-husband under the RICO Act for allegedly filing false child support claims.

ATLANTA — A 1980s law originally aimed mainly at organized crime can be used in domestic disputes, the Georgia Supreme Court clarified in a ruling involving a legal clash between former spouses.

The decision last week reversed the state Court of Appeals, which had ruled that the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, did not apply to domestic disputes.

Legal experts were not surprised by the high court's decision but said it preserves a powerful legal tool that could lead to more respect for civil proceedings, since the racketeering law enhances the consequences for playing fast and loose with facts and rules.

"So many of the predicate crimes to satisfy the RICO statute routinely occur in what the Court of Appeals is calling 'garden variety domestic cases'," said Tanya Washington, a Georgia State University law professor. "Forgery and fraudulent communications, and engaging with other people for them to testify a certain way. All of those sorts of things happen in family law cases."

If a party is found to have violated some of the 43 categories of offenses listed under the racketeering law, it can lead to severe financial penalties, she said, or even a criminal investigation: "It makes it easier for a prosecutor to pick up the RICO claim and follow the breadcrumbs."

The unanimous Supreme Court opinion issued June 30 nullified an appellate decision that said it would be "absurd" and "in defiance of common sense and sound reasoning" to apply the RICO Act "to any garden-variety domestic dispute."

The appeals court had affirmed a decision in a Paulding County Superior Court lawsuit brought by Jennifer Warner against her ex-husband, Jeffrey Espitia, and his fiancée, Krystal Kriewaldt.

Warner invoked the RICO Act after the Cobb County Superior Court ruled against Espitia in a prior lawsuit. He had sued to recover child support from her that he claimed was in arrears.

Their two children lived with him, and he asserted that she had failed to make her monthly $550 payments.

But he admitted in court that he had presented incorrect information and was uncertain about the arrears, saying it was an inadvertent error. He said he had trusted Kriewaldt's calculations.

The Cobb court determined Espitia's claims were "substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious," finding that he had gone to court to harass and intimidate his ex-wife.

Armed with that decision, Warner sued in Paulding, invoking the RICO Act.

The Paulding court ruled against her, so she appealed. The appeals court also decided against her, ruling that her underlying claims against her ex-husband were not a matter for the court to consider because the RICO Act did not apply. 

The appeals court described her lawsuit as "yet another volley in the parties' long-running domestic dispute," adding that nothing in the RICO Act suggests it "may be warped so far beyond its original purpose of combating organized crime to apply to a festering domestic feud."

Warner then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which criticized the appeals court's opinion on RICO's applicability, saying the opinion lacked "any meaningful analysis" of Georgia's racketeering law. The high court ordered the appeals court to consider Warner's underlying claim that her ex-husband and his fiancée had conspired to file false documents about her child support payments.

Lawmakers clearly intended RICO to target more than organized crime when they updated the law in 1997 to thwart "the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements," the Supreme Court opinion said.

The opinion also criticized the appellate court for misusing what's known as the "absurdity" doctrine, a legal analysis that courts can use when the text of a law produces more than one plausible interpretation. If one outcome produces absurd results and another does not, a court should generally side with the latter interpretation, the Supreme Court opinion noted.

But in this case, the opinion said, there was only one plausible interpretation of the text of the law, which prohibits "any person" from conspiring to violate RICO’s provisions.

John Floyd, a former prosecutor and RICO expert who now uses the law mostly in corporate lawsuits for the Atlanta law firm Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, said the Supreme Court needed to send a message to lower courts that the racketeering law applies broadly. 

Otherwise, he said, the appeals court ruling might have precluded RICO claims in civil cases, including in serious domestic disputes involving threats of murder, kidnapping or other violence.

Floyd helped prosecute Atlanta Public Schools educators for cheating on test scores and then helped Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis with her election conspiracy case against President Donald Trump and his associates.

RICO cases are difficult to bring, but the law provides a powerful legal tool against conspirators in criminal and civil cases, he said.

Civil RICO judgments can result in treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctions.

Although the financial stakes in this particular domestic dispute might have been modest, Floyd said, "a bad decision in a case like that still cascades down through everything, whether the next case is a $100 case or a $100 million case."

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/state/2026/07/08/georgia-supreme-court-allows-rico-use-in-domestic-disputes/90841676007/

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: Georgia Supreme Court rebukes appellate decision, confirms RICO Act applies in family lawsuits (The Brunswick News, 7-8-26)

 

Georgia Supreme Court rebukes appellate decision, confirms RICO Act applies in family lawsuits

• By Ty Tagami Capitol Beat News Service
  

 
• Jul 8, 2026
  
  

  ATLANTA — A 1980s law originally aimed mainly at organized crime can be used in domestic disputes, the Georgia Supreme Court clarified in a ruling involving a legal clash between former spouses.

  The decision last week reversed the state Court of Appeals, which had ruled that the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, did not apply to domestic disputes.

  Legal experts were not surprised by the high court’s decision but said it preserves a powerful legal tool that could lead to more respect for civil proceedings, since the racketeering law enhances the consequences for playing fast and loose with facts and rules.
  

  “So many of the predicate crimes to satisfy the RICO statute routinely occur in what the Court of Appeals is calling ‘garden variety domestic cases’,” said Tanya Washington, a Georgia State University law professor. “Forgery and fraudulent communications and engaging with other people for them to testify a certain way. All of those sorts of things happen in family law cases.”

  If a party is found to have violated some of the 43 categories of offenses listed under the racketeering law, it can lead to severe financial penalties, she said, or even a criminal investigation: “It makes it easier for a prosecutor to pick up the RICO claim and follow the breadcrumbs.”

  The unanimous Supreme Court opinion issued June 30 nullified an appellate decision that said it would be “absurd” and “in defiance of common sense and sound reasoning” to apply the RICO Act “to any garden-variety domestic dispute.”

  The appeals court had affirmed a decision in a Paulding County Superior Court lawsuit brought by Jennifer Warner against her ex-husband, Jeffrey Espitia, and his fiancée, Krystal Kriewaldt.

  Warner invoked the RICO Act after the Cobb County Superior Court ruled against Espitia in a prior lawsuit. He had sued to recover child support from her that he claimed was in arrears.

  Their two children lived with him, and he asserted that she had failed to make her monthly $550 payments.

  But he admitted in court that he had presented incorrect information and was uncertain about the arrears, saying it was an inadvertent error. He said he had trusted Kriewaldt’s calculations.

  The Cobb court determined Espitia’s claims were “substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious,” finding that he had gone to court to harass and intimidate his ex-wife.
  

  Armed with that decision, Warner sued in Paulding, invoking the RICO Act.

  The Paulding court ruled against her, so she appealed. The appeals court also decided against her, ruling that her underlying claims against her ex-husband were not a matter for the court to consider because the RICO Act did not apply. The appeals court described her lawsuit as “yet another volley in the parties’ long-running domestic dispute,” adding that nothing in the RICO Act suggests it “may be warped so far beyond its original purpose of combating organized crime to apply to a festering domestic feud.”

  Warner then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which criticized the appeals court’s opinion on RICO’s applicability, saying the opinion lacked “any meaningful analysis” of Georgia’s racketeering law. The high court ordered the appeals court to consider Warner’s underlying claim that her ex-husband and his fiancée had conspired to file false documents about her child support payments.

  Lawmakers clearly intended RICO to target more than organized crime when they updated the law in 1997 to thwart “the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements,” the Supreme Court opinion said.

  The opinion also criticized the appellate court for misusing what’s known as the “absurdity” doctrine, a legal analysis that courts can use when the text of a law produces more than one plausible interpretation. If one outcome produces absurd results and another does not, a court should generally side with the latter interpretation, the Supreme Court opinion noted.

  But in this case, the opinion said, there was only one plausible interpretation of the text of the law, which prohibits “any person” from conspiring to violate RICO’s provisions.

  John Floyd, a former prosecutor and RICO expert who now uses the law mostly in corporate lawsuits for the Atlanta law firm Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, said the Supreme Court needed to send a message to lower courts that the racketeering law applies broadly. Otherwise, he said, the appeals court ruling might have precluded RICO claims in civil cases, including in serious domestic disputes involving threats of murder, kidnapping or other violence.

  Floyd helped prosecute Atlanta Public Schools educators for cheating on test scores and then helped Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis with her election conspiracy case against President Donald Trump and his associates.

  RICO cases are difficult to bring, but the law provides a powerful legal tool against conspirators in criminal and civil cases, he said.

  Civil RICO judgments can result in treble damages, attorney fees and injunctions.

  Although the financial stakes in this particular domestic dispute might have been modest, Floyd said, “a bad decision in a case like that still cascades down through everything, whether the next case is a $100 case or a $100 million case.”
  
  https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/state_news/georgia-supreme-court-rebukes-appellate-decision-confirms-rico-act-applies-in-family-lawsuits/article_1a958cb3-e0f6-4486-ae74-b305000610c3.html

READ FULL ARTICLE →

MEDIA ARTICLE: Georgia Supreme Court Disbars Lawyer for Child Welfare Charge, Highlighting Cross-State Ethical Enforcement (Legal News Feed, 7-7-26)

 

Georgia Supreme Court Disbars Lawyer for Child Welfare Charge, Highlighting Cross-State Ethical Enforcement

The Georgia Supreme Court recently disbarred an attorney who pled guilty to a charge connected to child welfare. 

This decision came following the lawyer’s guilty plea in August 2025 to one count of endangering the welfare of children in the third degree in New Jersey. 

The plea represented a serious breach of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, prompting the court’s decisive action. 

Details of the court’s ruling are discussed in a report on legal developments.

The disbarred attorney had been practicing law in Georgia, and the plea deal stemming from actions in New Jersey directly impacted his professional standing. 

Such outcomes underscore the interconnected nature of legal conduct across state lines, emphasizing that violations in one jurisdiction can have nationwide professional repercussions.

This case highlights the importance for legal professionals to maintain ethical standards consistent with their state’s rules, as transgressions can swiftly lead to career-altering consequences. 

Legal industry experts note that this ruling serves as a reminder of the rigorous ethical obligations lawyers must uphold to maintain their licensure and trust in the profession.

The implications of this disbarment may resonate through legal circles, prompting closer scrutiny of related cases and ethical compliance across multiple jurisdictions. 

Legal analysts anticipate that similar cases will be watched closely to determine how jurisdictions handle violations that occur outside their state boundaries.

https://legalnewsfeed.com/2026/07/07/georgia-supreme-court-disbars-lawyer-for-child-welfare-charge-highlighting-cross-state-ethical-enforcement/

READ FULL ARTICLE →