In In re Jefferson, 283 Ga. 216 (657 SE2d 830) (2008) the Supreme Court enunciated the following standard for adjudicating an attorney in contempt for statements made in court: An attorney may be held in contempt for statements made during courtroom proceedings only after the court has found: (1) that the attorney's statements and attendant conduct either actually interfered with or posed an imminent threat of interfering with the administration of justice and; (2) that the attorney knew or should have known that the statements and attendant conduct exceeded the outermost bounds of permissible advocacy. Because contempt is a crime, the evidence must, of course, support these findings beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 220. In re Jefferson involved an adjudication of contempt for counsel's statements made in the course of a delinquency hearing. Counsel, representing the juvenile defendant, repeatedly challenged certain rulings made by the juvenile court. The trial court, hearing the contempt proceeding upon the recusal of the original judge, found counsel in contempt. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the standard quoted above, noting that because vigorous advocacy is essential not only to the preservation of individual rights but also to the integrity of the judicial system whose truth-seeking process is sought to be protected through the exercise of the contempt power, courts must be judicious in their approach to adjudicating contempt. Id. at 221.