Total Articles: 21
Georgia Governor Signs Law Allowing Employers To Directly Answer Garnishment
On February 8, 2012, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 683 into law, overturning the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring Georgia employers to use a Georgia-licensed attorney when filing answers to garnishments in state courts of record. Under the new law, effective immediately, employers may use human resources, payroll and other non-attorney employees, third-party vendors or outside counsel to respond to Georgia garnishment actions.
Garnishment Reform Comes to Georgia Businesses
Effective immediately, businesses in Georgia can save themselves the expense of using legal counsel to file routine garnishment answers. The new law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal on February 7, 2012, allows businesses to appoint an “authorized officer or employee†to file such answers and declares that such filing “shall not constitute the practice of law.†This reverses the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that held that filing garnishment answers by a non-attorney is the unlicensed practice of law.
Georgia Garnishment Law Amended
Executive Summary: Georgia businesses are once again able to answer garnishments through an authorized officer or employee rather than an attorney.
Rules For Garnishments In Georgia Changed Again
As you know, last year the Georgia Supreme Court issued a new rule prohibiting non-lawyers, such as payroll clerks or human resources professionals, from signing garnishment pleadings that are filed in court. Doing so was, in the Court's view, the unlicensed practice of law. Our Legal Alert on that development was issued in September.
Governor Signs Law to Overturn Rule Requiring Georgia Attorneys to Answer Garnishments
On February 8, 2012, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 683 into law. HB 683 effectively overturns the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring employers to use a Georgia-licensed attorney to file answers to garnishments in Georgia courts of record. Under the new law, which becomes effective immediately, employers may use a Georgia-licensed attorney, their own in-house staff (including human resources, payroll, and other non-attorney staff), or other third-party vendors to handle responses to summonses of garnishment in Georgia.
Georgia Supreme Court Decision Requiring Georgia Attorneys to Answer Georgia Garnishments May Be Overturned
The Georgia business community may have successfully rallied against the September 12, 2011 Georgia Supreme Court decision requiring any answer of garnishment filed in a Georgia court of record to be signed by a Georgia-licensed attorney. The Georgia House of Representatives has approved a bill that would reverse the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision and allow employers to execute and file garnishment answers without the involvement of an attorney. Last week, and without discussion, the Georgia Senate unanimously passed the bill, and now the bill will be sent to Governor Nathan Deal for his final approval. The new law would be effective upon the Governor’s signature.
Is Your Business Prepared To Comply with the Georgia Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011?
On May 13, 2011, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill #87, a comprehensive immigration law mandating employer verification compliance and establishing criminal penalties for various acts. Some have touted the law as one of the toughest immigration laws in the nation and claim the Georgia law is similar to many provisions in Arizona’s S.B. 1070 currently under legal challenge in the State of Arizona. On June 2, 2011, several civil rights and labor groups filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging several provisions of the AZ-style legislation on constitutional grounds. This article will focus on the main employment verification provisions of the new law as well as various criminal provisions that could impact employers and/or their employees.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Corporations Must Use an Attorney to Answer Garnishments
Georgia’s garnishment law places unique responsibilities on employers. They must serve and file an answer to the summons of garnishment at 30-day intervals throughout the life of a continuing garnishment, in addition to withholding and remitting a portion of the employee’s disposable earnings. Failure to file and serve these answers at any point can result in a default judgment and the employer becoming liable for the employee’s debt.
Georgia Attorneys Alone May Answer Georgia Garnishments
On September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court approved an advisory opinion issued by the State Bar of Georgia Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The opinion interpreted existing Georgia law as requiring all garnishment answers filed in Georgia courts to be signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the state. Consequently, as of September 12, all corporate employers must use a Georgia-licensed attorney to respond to a summons of garnishment issued by a Georgia state or superior court. Failure to comply with this rule can result in default and potential criminal sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law.
Only Georgia Attorneys May Answer Georgia Garnishments
In a two-sentence decision issued on September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court approved an advisory opinion issued by the State Bar of Georgia Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The advisory opinion interpreted existing Georgia case law as requiring any answer of garnishment filed in a court of record in Georgia to be signed by an attorney licensed to practice in that state. Consequently, as of September 12, all corporations must use a Georgia-licensed attorney to respond to any summons of garnishment issued by a state or superior court in Georgia. Failure to comply with this rule can result in a default (a stricken answer) in the garnishment proceeding and possible criminal sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law.
Attorneys Must Sign Garnishment Answers, Georgia State Bar Says
Garnishments against employees place a greater burden on payroll personnel, but are generally something that most employers have learned to manage. You do the calculations, make the withholding, and then send the money and the garnishment answer to the court. Yet companies with Georgia employees now have an additional hurdle when responding to garnishment actions – working with attorneys.
Peach State Pitfalls: Georgia Employers Must Now Use an Attorney to File Garnishment Answers
The Georgia Supreme Court recently changed the law by requiring employers to file answers in garnishment matters through an attorney. Though Georgia corporations are required to be represented by an attorney in courts other than magistrate courts, this rule has not typically been followed in answering summons of wage garnishments. Georgia employers often respond to these routine filings through payroll or human resources personnel without reliance on legal counsel. The supreme court's decision means that employers continuing this practice risk having their answers rejected by the court or challenged by plaintiffs. Equally important, employers who now file in state or superior courts without attorneys will be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The ruling is effective immediately.
Georgia Employers Must Use Attorney to Answer Garnishment Summons
Executive Summary: On September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court adopted an informal State Bar of Georgia opinion stating that any non-lawyer who answers a garnishment in Georgia is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, as of September 12, all companies responding to a summons of garnishment in the state of Georgia must file their answer through a licensed Georgia attorney.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Non-Lawyers May Not Answer Garnishments
Over the years, Georgia employers have become accustomed to processing and responding to garnishments on their own. While legal counsel might be called upon to handle the more unique issues that inevitably arise in a garnishment proceeding, employers more commonly resort to their human resources or payroll departments to handle routine garnishments.
Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction to Block Parts of Georgia Immigration Law
Determining parts of Georgia’s new immigration law (HB 87) were preempted by federal law, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the state law that allow police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandate sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants. Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Deal, et al., No. 1:11-CV-1804-TWT (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011). These sections were to take effect on July 1, 2011. The rest of the law’s provisions remain intact. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has vowed to appeal the ruling.
Georgia Requires E-Verify, Cracks Down On Illegal Immigration.
Georgia recently enacted the Illegal Immigration Report and Enforcement Act of 2011, which, among other things, requires employers with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify, a federal electronic work authorization program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. The law also provides new, harsh penalties for illegal immigrants and those who hire or help them.
Georgia Requires More Employers to Use E-Verify, Other Changes, Sets Stage
On April 14, 2011, the Georgia State Legislature passed H.B. 87, an immigration bill that will require most private employers requiring a Georgia business license to use the federal E-Verify identification system to confirm the eligibility of new employees. The bill duplicates and arguably goes beyond federal criminal definitions for “harboring†“illegal aliens.†The bill also expands the scope of state law enforcement in identifying, detaining, and ensuring removal of unauthorized persons encountered in enforcement activity. The bill, titled the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011," awaits the expected signature of Gov. Nathan Deal (R).
Georgia Proposes More Aggressive Immigration Law
Yet another domino has fallen in the changing landscape of immigration law. Georgia, following in the footsteps of states like Arizona, has passed legislation addressing the issue of illegal immigration within its own borders. Last week, the Georgia Senate, in a 37-19 vote, adopted and amended HB 87, the immigration bill originally drafted by the Georgia House of Representatives. Governor Nathan Deal plans to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.
Georgia’s Sweeping Immigration Bill Goes to Governor
The Georgia state legislature passed immigrant legislation (HB87) on April 14, the final day of its 2011 session. Governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign the sweeping immigration bill into law as early as today. HB87 mandates that companies with more than 10 full-time employees register with the federal E-Verify program to check the legal status of new hires and creates the offense of “aggravated identity theft†for the use of false information. In addition, it allows the police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandates sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants.
Georgia Enacts New Gun Law: All Employers Affected.
After years of lobbying by gun rights groups in its favor, and by business associations in opposition, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the "Business Security and Employee Privacy Act" on May 14. This Act expands the areas in which holders of firearm licenses may legally carry concealed weapons – and places some limitations on employers’ rights.
Georgia Department of Labor Issues Rules for Compliance with Georgia Immigration Law.
The Georgia Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued rules relating to compliance with the requirements of the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act of 2006, O.C.G. A. 13-10-91. As noted in the April 2007 edition of Management Update, this law requires contractors and subcontractors who have contracts with the state of Georgia or any of its agencies to verify the employment eligibility of their employees through a federal work authorization program.
