The Court of Appeals of Georgia stated that an individual cannot act as both a receiver/auditor and a special master in the same matter because they would be acting as investigator, witness, and judge of fact and law, which would require him to assess the credibility of his own work. A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, A20A1688, A21A0525, 2021 WL 977848 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2021).
Georgia law distinguishes between the role played by a receiver and an auditor. Id. at *3. A trial court may appoint an auditor in all cases “involving matters of account, if the case shall require it,” “to investigate the matters of account and report the result to the court.” O.C.G.A. § 9-7-3. Thus, “unless modified by the order of appointment,” an auditor generally is granted the authority “to hear motions, allow amendments, and pass upon all questions of law and fact,” including the “power to subpoena and swear witnesses and compel the production of papers.” O.C.G.A. § 9-7-6. And under O.C.G.A. § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a ‘master’ in the superior court are now performed by an ‘auditor,’ although ... [USCR] 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to perform certain duties enumerated therein. Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 325 Ga. App. 332, 337-338 (2) (750 SE2d 779) (2013), reversed in part on other grounds by Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 296 Ga. 48 (764 SE2d 858) (2014).
USCR 46 (A) (1) permits a trial court to:
appoint a [special] master: (a) to perform duties consented to by the parties; (b) to address pretrial and post-trial matters that the court cannot efficiently, effectively or promptly address; (c) to provide guidance, advice and information to the court on complex or specialized subjects, including, but not limited to, technology issues related to the discovery process; (d) to monitor implementation of and compliance with orders of the court or, in appropriate cases, monitoring implementation of settlement agreements; (e) to investigate and report to the court on matters identified by the court; (f) to conduct an accounting as instructed by the court and to report upon the results of the same; (g) upon a showing of good cause, to attend and supervise depositions conducted outside of the jurisdiction; and (h) to hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided by the court without a jury if appointment is warranted by (i) some exceptional condition, or (ii) the need to perform an accounting, to resolve a difficult computation of damages or if the matter involves issues for which a special substantive competence would be beneficial.
USCR 46 (A) (2) provides:
A master must not have a relationship to the parties, counsel, action, or court that would require disqualification of a judge under applicable standards, unless the parties consent with the court’s approval to appointment of a particular person after disclosure of all potential grounds for disqualification.
Lastly, O.C.G.A. § 24-6-605 prohibits a judge from testifying as a witness in a matter before him. Similarly, the Code of Judicial conduct prohibits a judge from participating in a matter in which he has “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts” or if he has been a witness in the proceedings. Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.11 (A) (1), (6).
The Court held that since the requirements of each duty as to an auditor, receiver, and special master would have the individual performing factual inquiries, testifying as to those inquiries, and then making decisions and issuing the judge recommendations as to those inquiries, the duties must be given to separate individuals.
Comments