Maples v. Seeliger

In Maples v. Seeliger, 165 Ga. App. 201, 202 (1) (299 SE2d 906) (1983), the Court recognized that it is "not every attack on a judge that disqualifies him from sitting" and that "a lawyer's challenge, though disruptive, recalcitrant and disagreeable, still may not be that insulting attack upon the integrity of the judge carrying such potential for bias as to require disqualification." Maples, supra at 203 (2). In Maples, where defense counsel accused the trial judge of prejudice toward his client, our examination of the dialogue between court and counsel reflected "a lack of that degree of scurrilousness raising a suspicion of bias or presence of strong feeling on the part of the trial court." Maples, supra.