Judge Gail Tusan, Fulton County Superior Court (Photo: John Disney/ALM)

A Fulton County judge who oversaw two now-dismissed lawsuits against a lawyer for his work as a special prosecutor targeting illegal gambling on coin-operated machines, has declined to award the defendant attorney fees.

The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail Tusan comes after the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a nearly $50,000 award she granted to attorney Michael Lambros in one of the cases. Lambros had asked Tusan to award fees in both cases against the plaintiffs and their lawyers, Begner & Begner partner Alan Begner and Atlanta solo G. Brian Spears.

The gaming machine owners—Redemption Alliance of Georgia Inc., Gaming Central and William Booth—first sued Lambros in 2014 for his work in several counties, which has garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeitures and settlements. They stem from arrangements Lambros had with the Clayton, Lanier, Emanuel and Toombs county district attorneys to pursue criminal and civil actions against merchants and gaming machine owners believed to be paying cash winnings to patrons in violation of the law.

The suits argued, among other things, that the prosecutions were improper because Lambros' compensation was based on his success at forfeiting cash and property, that he was improperly using Georgia racketeering law to pursue the cases and that the state's conspiracy law is unconstitutional.

Lambros asked the attorney general, the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia and the individual district attorneys to provide a defense. All declined, so his Lambros Firm defended both suits.

The first suit, Redemption I, named Lambros in his official capacity. Redemption II, which named him in his individual capacity, was dismissed six months after it was filed.

Begner noted that Tusan cited sovereign immunity issues in her rulings in both cases and said the issues raised in the lawsuits were never litigated.

“The issue before Judge Tusan was, when Redemption I and II were filed, was whether clearly established law prevented us from suing him in his official capacity as special prosecutor, and later in his individual capacity, “ Begner said.  

“I think Judge Tusan found that it wasn't clear when we filed the suits, and the question of sovereign immunity is still sort of unclear,” he said. “We never really had a discussion about the facts, which is about how he is alleged to have violated the due process rights of machine owners. He didn't really allege that the facts were frivolous or untrue and could not be believed.”

Lambros did not respond to requests for comment Friday but said in response to last year's Court of Appeals order that he did not have permission to comment.

Lambros moved for attorney fees after Redemption I was dismissed, and Tusan granted them in 2016 while ruling it was a “frivolous lawsuit and that all the claims in it were barred by sovereign immunity.” She ordered the plaintiffs and their lawyers to pay Lambros $49,690.

But the Georgia Court of Appeals said a ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court two months after Tusan's order left it “unclear whether sovereign immunity bars claims for injunctive or declaratory relief relating to legislation that is alleged to be unconstitutional.”

In vacating the order, the appellate opinion said the basis of Tusan's order was “that all of the appellants' claims were barred by sovereign immunity, thus, the lawsuit was frivolous. The trial court made no reference to the factual allegations of the complaint nor did it conclude that appellants failed to state a claim with respect to the declaratory judgment action.”

On remand, Tusan declined to award fees in either case.

Regarding Redemption I, Tusan's March 15 order said a 2015 Georgia Supreme Court decision, SJN Properties LLC v. Fulton County Board of Assessors, 296 Ga. 793, “holds that sovereign immunity does not preclude claims for mandamus relief.” Thus, fees are not warranted under Georgia's frivolous litigation statute, she added.

As to Redemption II, she said, Lambros' claims of frivolous litigation were also misplaced.

“The court finds the factual backdrop of this case and the legal theories asserted in connection therewith did present novel legal theories about which reasonable minds might disagree,” Tusan wrote. “Although the court was not persuaded by the arguments plaintiffs made in responding to Lambros' Motion to Dismiss, the court cannot say that plaintiffs arguments were nonsensical, illogical, foreclosed by some existing precedent, or without some arguable support in the case law and statutes sufficient to warrant an imposition of fees pursuant to [the statute].”

Lambros' special prosecutor work in the gambling cases is also the subject of a federal lawsuit filed in 2016 by an elderly Peach County couple whose restaurant contained several of the machines and was targeted for forfeiture.

In another case, a federal judge last year refused to disqualify Lambros from a civil racketeering case against the owners of a DeKalb County convenience store who were accused of using the machines for illegal gambling.

Begner and Spears are not involved in those cases.