A Chatham County prosecutor is asking a judge to keep a defense attorney from contacting him, alleging that the opposing counsel has been stalking him.
The Petition for a Stalking Protective Order was filed Monday by Assistant District Attorney Kirkland Swann, who works for District Attorney Shalena Cook Jones, against defense attorney Jonathan Boone Phillips.
The Petition, which was provided to TheGeorgiaVirtue.com Tuesday, contends that:
- Swann received an “unsolicited and personally harassing email” from Phillips at 6:31 p.m. on April 17 on his official government email. The contact, Swann wrote, “was made without my consent and served no legitimate legal or professional purpose.” He stated the communication was “personal” and “antagonistic,” with “the express purpose of humiliation, psychological intrusional, and professional intimidation.”
- The text of the email referenced by Swann is written out in the petition and reads:
- Mr. Kirkland G. Swann,
I have a question.
In chambers you told the court I would be ‘eaten alive’ by Atlanta attorneys. But I pulled your personnel file and note that you quit your job as an attorney 6 months after you quit the bar. So, my question is, why do you portray to have so much experience as an ‘Atlanta attorney’?
-J. Boone Phillips, Attorney
- Mr. Kirkland G. Swann,
- The text of the email referenced by Swann is written out in the petition and reads:
- Phillips attempted to undermine and cause distress to Swann by referencing his personnel file
- Phillips took ‘extrajudicial effort to access personal employment records outside the context of any active discovery process or court motion, which is deeply invasive and coercive in nature.’
- Note: All personnel files of public employees are public information and are subject to the Georgia Open Records Act.
- Phillips sent other ‘targeted communications’ in a ‘calculated attempt to belittle [Swann’s] character, discredit [Swann’s] professional standing, and provoke a reaction.” Swann wrote in his petition that the emails were copied to a judge and his judicial assistant, which ‘increased the emotional distress’ caused by Phillips as he attempted to “harass and intimidate.”
Swann’s petition did not include any of his responses to Phillips, nor did the petition include screenshots or copies of the exchanges. The emails cited in the petition include:
- “May I have her date of birth please?” on March 20, 2025 at 3:56 p.m.
- “Rest assured that I’ll be here long after you exit through the rotating door at the DA’s office.” on March 20, 2025 at 4:10 p.m.
- “When did you turn into such a condescending prick? I thought we had a good thing going…” on March 20, 2025 at 5:07 p.m.
- “Glad it’s not personal. Still an off-putting characteristic for a self-proclaimed beloved scholar such as yourself.” on March 21, 2025 at 11:19 a.m.
- “You’re writing some awfully big checks this week. Hope you got what it takes to back it up.” on March 21, 2025 at 11:40 a.m.
- “Your intelligence is only rivaled by your pettiness.” on March 21, 2025 at 11:48 a.m.
Swann is asking a judge to bar Phillips from being within 200 yards of him for 12 months and to bar Phillips from having any direct or indirect contact with Swann.
The petition, which appears to be copied from another case, also requests that Phillips be barred from ‘abusing, harassing, and intimidating’ Swann’s children, though there is no reference to any children in the rest of the petition.
Motion for Recusal of Judge After Judge Self-Recuses
Shortly after the Petition was filed, the judge referenced in the petition issued an order of self-recusal to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Still, Swann filed documents on the matter the following day, seeking to have Judge Christopher K. Middleton recused from the case.
In Swann’s petition for the protective order, he wrote that Phillips copied the Judge and his judicial assistant and Phillips doing so created distress for him [Swann], but in an affidavit he filed on April 22, Swann wrote that he was the one to forward an email from Phillips to the judge to “avoid any appearance of ex parte communication” and because Swann believed it warranted the Court’s attention and intervention.
The claim is conflicting, due to the fact that ex parte communication pertains to the judge or a decisionmaker in a case, not the opposing counsel. But if Swann’s intention in looping the judge in on the April 17 email was to avoid ‘ex parte communication,’ it is puzzling as to why Swann would oppose Phillips doing the same.
Notably, Swann cites an April 18 email from Judge Middleton after Swann forwarded the communications. Swann contends that Middleton’s statements that Swann and Phillips “feel very passionate about their positions..I understand the jabs and responses to the jabs and vice versa…The courthouse is not the playground and such conduct should be tempered. As leaders in this community, we are held to a higher standard.”
He then called Middleton’s reference to his own trial partner “troubling.” Middleton reportedly said in an email: “My former trial partner has a reputation of being very aggressive (as most of you know). Therefore, I’m no stranger to the profile.”
Swann wrote:
This comment warrants close scrutiny. In invoking his former trial partner – someone with whom Judge Middleton presumably shared close professional bond – the Judge draws direct and personal comparison between Attorney Phillips and prior colleague known for aggressive litigation tactics. This introduces multiple layers of partiality.
A hearing is scheduled for later this week before Judge Bass.
