Court Opinion

ID: 9589177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:41:55.185924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:56.675062
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur but must explain the reasons so as not to give the impression that I agree with all that is said. In addition, I dissent with respect to the action ordered by this court as a result of the opinion.
Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Sanctions” which sought three different types of relief: contempt against attorney Downey, with no specific penalty suggested; a monetary penalty against defendant in the form of costs and fees incurred and to be incurred in the lawsuit (and the striking of pleadings, which relief does not figure in the dispute as it comes to us); and disqualification of Downey’s firm from further participation in the suit, which of course would be a penalty against defendant and against its attorney, Downey, as well as against the firm. As to this latter sanction, it would affect the client’s right to be represented by counsel of its choosing, and it would affect the financial and reputation interests of the attorney personally, as well as those interests of his firm. Downey’s, and his firm’s, rights in regard to choosing clients would also be affected.
The trial court which heard and ruled on the comprehensive motion awarded several types of relief. It penalized defendant by disqualifying Downey from further participation in the suit and thus requiring someone else in the firm to take up the cause. It penalized Downey by depriving him of a client with a resulting fee loss (he was not to benefit from his firm’s continuing the representation) and a tarnish on his professional reputation. It penalized Downey also by charging him with plaintiff’s costs and fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting the case.1
This is the order appealed from, by defendant, the client. We do not address the question of whether it has standing to challenge the punitive measures imposed on its attorney in connection with what the trial court found contemptuous. We need not do so, because we have concluded that one of the major factors upon which the court measured the amount of damages occasioned by the attorney’s alleged *878misbehavior has been substantially undermined by our opinion. That is, in fashioning a penalty for disobeying the trial court and implying in open court what the outcome of the prior trial was, the sanctioning court cast blame for the mistrial on that attorney. That, we say, was error because the mistrial was granted under OCGA § 9-10-185 prematurely or too hastily.2 So the sanctioning court should not have considered this factor in fashioning an appropriate punishment for Downey’s possibly injecting prejudice into the case, assuming it was deliberate.
Whether or not appellant has standing to complain about the monetary sanctions against its attorney, its own interests are directly affected by the disqualification of its attorney from further participation in a lawsuit it will now have to defend for the third time. The disqualification, like the monetary sanctions against the attorney, stems from what precipitated the mistrial, which we conclude has a faulty base.
The sanctioning court should now be required to reconsider the multi-faceted motion in view of our decision as to the mistrial. The new light in which this ingredient should be viewed should first be considered by the lower court in recomputing appropriate sanctions. Of course, it has the power to punish an attorney, who is an officer of the court, for contempt of court. OCGA § 15-1-3; West v. Field, 181 Ga. 152 (6) (181 SE 661) (1935). We cannot exercise that court’s discretion. Berman v. Berman, 232 Ga. 342 (206 SE2d 447) (1974); Rutledge v. State, 151 Ga. App. 615 (260 SE2d 743) (1979).
Even if the mistrial should not have been granted, that does not address or foreclose the question of whether the attorney’s statement was contemptuous. Moreover, whether the jury heard it or not is not directly relevant, although if it was heard that fact might tend to show it was said close enough to the jury and loud enough so it could be heard. That is, was it said with the intention that it be heard by the jury? If so, such a fact would reflect on whether there was a deliberate effort to inject prejudice into the case in favor of the attorney’s own client.
I would therefore remand for this to be done. If a new assessment is made and appellant or anyone with an appealable interest believes legal error has been made, it can seek review. We are, after all, a court of review exclusively, Harmon v. Southern R. Co., 123 Ga. App. 309 (2) (180 SE2d 604) (1971); Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. Ill, and should not by our decision excuse an officer of the court for con*879tempt as a result.
Decided June 25, 1986
Rehearing denied July 24, 1986
Joseph C. Parker, Y. Kevin Williams, for appellant.
Clifford J. Steele, Kevin J. Rodgers, for appellee.
Dan E. White, Albert H. Parnell, amici curiae.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Pope join in this opinion.

 Although the court stated in its order that plaintiff abandoned the motion for contempt by not following up the oral motion made at trial with a written “Petition for Contempt,” the motion for sanctions then being ruled on did ask that Downey be held in contempt and the court did make findings of fact in that regard and penalized him. See Dowdy v. Palmour, 251 Ga. 135, 141 (1) (304 SE2d 52) (1983) and Moody v. State, 131 Ga. App. 355, 358-359 (2) (206 SE2d 79) (1974) regarding contempt procedure.

 The case is in the present peculiar posture of this court disapproving the grant of mistrial without reversing that order, because there was no appeal from the declaration of mistrial. See Selman’s Express v. Wright, 119 Ga. App. 752 (168 SE2d 658) (1969); OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).