The Supreme Court of Georgia was urged Monday to reverse a state Court of Appeals ruling that stripped the former judge of DeKalb County's now defunct Recorders Court of immunity in a civil case.

That former judge, Nelly Withers, and her court administrator, Troy Thompson, urged the high court to reinstate Withers' immunity from litigation brought by former defendant Bobby Schroeder, who had been ticketed for a traffic infraction.

The case has attracted the attention—and alarm—of the state councils of superior court, state court and magistrate judges. The organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing Withers even though her operation of Recorders Court was so problematic that the Georgia General Assembly abolished it in 2015.

Withers' court was the target of a string of lawsuits questioning its operations, including allegations it was illegally adjudicating cases over which it had no jurisdiction.

When the Legislature created four new state court judgeships in 2015 to handle traffic citations and ordinance violations that had been the purview of Recorders Court, Withers was not appointed to fill one of the posts.

The judges' associations contend the 2017 Court of Appeals ruling, if allowed to stand, “would require judges and court personnel to defend against all lawsuits alleging negligent management, supervision and training of personnel” and would likely have “significant, negative repercussions on the courts.”

On Monday, in a notable twist, three state Court of Appeals judges—Chief Judge Stephen Dillard, Amanda Mercier and Clyde Reese III—stood in for Justices Nels Peterson, Carol Hunstein and Chief Justice Harris Hines to hear Withers' appeal.

The appellate judges will join with the high court's six other justices—David Nahmias, Harold Melton, Keith Blackwell, Michael Boggs, Britt Grant and Robert Benham—in reviewing whether to reverse an opinion written by their appellate colleagues Christopher McFadden, Charles Bethel and Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, who was recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

McFadden, writing for the panel last year, reversed a DeKalb County Superior Court judge who dismissed the case.

McFadden's opinion held that, while judicial immunity may shield judges from suits stemming from actions they perform in their judicial capacity, it does not extend to administrative actions such as supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court.

The appellate panel was also persuaded by Schroeder's counsel, David Ates, who argued that, because Withers and Thompson were negligent in executing specific administrative duties, they were not immune from liability. Ates died shortly after the opinion was handed down, and Schroeder is now represented by Harlan Miller and Gerard Lupa.

The appellate panel also reinstated Schroeder's civil rights claims over allegations he was illegally jailed because Withers and Thompson oversaw a dysfunctional court operation that they knew was understaffed, underfunded and routinely transmitted inaccurate information to the state.

Although Schroeder appeared in court and paid his fine, court personnel notified the state Department of Driver Services that his driver's license should be suspended because he had not shown up in court and never paid his ticket.

The subsequent suspension of Schroeder's license led to two more traffic stops, revocation proceedings of his probation as a first offender, a month-long sojourn in jail, the loss of his job and the repossession of his car before court personnel belatedly corrected the error.

On Monday, attorney Thomas Mitchell of Carothers & Mitchell claimed Schroeder's counsel had not pointed to specific official acts or duties that Withers or Thompson negligently failed to perform. The case was tossed out on a motion to dismiss prior to any discovery.

Justice David Nahmias pointed out that Mitchell was relying on cases that had been decided on motions for summary judgment after discovery. He asked how anyone would know so early in the litigation whether the county or the court had a policy laying out specific duties for the court administrator that would ensure that license suspensions were properly processed—policies that he may have violated.

Nahmias also said Mitchell's argument suggested he was seeking a rule that supervision and training responsibilities by an agency head were shielded by immunity, and that a defendant challenging those practices had no case.

“You don't get discovery, you don't get anything?” he asked. “If you allege ministerial dysfunction, you lose.”

“When you are talking about a chief judge and court administrator, that has to be the rule,” Mitchell said.

Justice Robert Benham asked if that meant litigants would have no recourse if the court bought Mitchell's argument.

“For the clerks themselves, they are supposed to do this. It appears to be ministerial duty” that would include immunity from liability, Mitchell said. “For the judge and court administrator, that's not the case. They need to be protected by judicial immunity.”

Benham also asked Miller, “What is it that you claim that the judge should have done that the judge failed to do?”

“We haven't specified that in the complaint,” Miller acknowledged. “It goes back to our ability to conduct some discovery to find out. … This court was a creature of DeKalb County. … We don't know what kind of rules, regulations, conditions or requirements may have been established by DeKalb County.”

But, provided a policy exists and was put in place by the judge, Miller argued “It's fair for the chief judge to be held responsible for it until the policy is rescinded.”

“That reasoning applies to all classes of courts,” Dillard interjected. “If you are right, then judicial immunity is a dead letter in this state for the most part.”