BlogLine

Georgia Supreme Court eliminates ‘judgmental immunity’ defense for attorneys

5/14/25

By: Marissa A. Dunn and Dana K. Maine

On May 13, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a significant opinion in Cox-Ott v. Barnes & Thornburg, LLP et al., — S.E. 2d –, 2025 WL 1373101, eliminating the “judgmental immunity” defense for attorneys in malpractice cases. This decision redefines the standard for evaluating an attorney’s conduct, emphasizing objective reasonableness over subjective judgment. 

Case Background 

In this case, Cox-Ott sued Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, and one of its attorneys, alleging legal malpractice. Cox-Ott claimed the firm negligently advised her to file a lawsuit in Georgia rather than New York and to pursue reformation of her insurance contract instead of rescission. The attorney’s advice was based on his extensive experience litigating in both states and his belief that Georgia law would be more favorable. 

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing “judgmental immunity”—a doctrine protecting attorneys for strategic decisions made in good faith. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, reasoning that the attorney’s advice was a tactical decision grounded in his professional experience. 

Georgia Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision 

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the judgmental immunity doctrine as a valid defense. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the attorney exercised reasonable care in providing legal advice, not merely whether the attorney acted with honest professional judgment. The Court explained that experience alone does not shield an attorney from liability; instead, the standard is whether the attorney’s conduct met the level of care expected of a competent attorney, as established by expert testimony. 

Impact of the Decision 

Despite discarding the term “judgmental immunity,” the Supreme Court’s ruling does not mark a dramatic departure from existing law. Instead, it clarifies that the evaluation of an attorney’s conduct is an objective inquiry—assessing whether the attorney’s actions were consistent with professional standards, rather than relying on the attorney’s subjective judgment. 

The decision in Cox-Ott establishes a clear precedent that Georgia attorneys must meet an objective standard of care in providing legal advice, regardless of their experience or personal judgment. 

For more information, please contact Dana Maine at dana.maine@fmglaw.com, Marissa Dunn at marissa.dunn@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.