JAW GA NEWS SPOTLIGHT: JENNIFER DORMINEY HERZOG

By JAW GA News

JAW GA News is expanding its review of Berrien County Attorney Jennifer Dorminey Herzog following repeated disputes over the treatment of press inquiries, Open Records requests, meeting records, and government transparency.

This article does not allege that Herzog has committed professional misconduct, nor does it claim that every disagreement involving her government-law work establishes wrongdoing.

Instead, this report examines the public record surrounding her professional background, her documented experience with Georgia Open Records and Open Meetings law, prior public disputes involving government-information requests, and the more recent correspondence between Herzog and JAW GA News.

The central question is straightforward:

Why were communications expressly identified as press inquiries repeatedly treated through an Open Records framework when JAW GA News had already stated that those inquiries were not Open Records Act requests?

That question becomes more significant when viewed against Herzog’s professional background.

Jennifer Dorminey Herzog is not new to county government law.

Hall Booth Smith, P.C., where Herzog is a partner and shareholder, states that she focuses her practice on governmental liability and serves as County Attorney for Berrien County. Her firm also states that she assists with county-attorney responsibilities involving Coffee, Tift, and Ware counties. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

Her listed experience includes competitive bidding, zoning and land-use planning, intergovernmental agreements, Open Meetings, Open Records, Department of Justice investigations, employment issues, elections, election litigation, local ordinances, construction projects, code enforcement, tax appeals, and constitutional claims against government entities. Hall Booth Smith further states that Herzog has served as counsel for governmental entities in litigation involving Open Records. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

That is an important fact.

Open Records and Open Meetings are not obscure corners of law outside Herzog’s normal practice. According to her own firm, they are part of the work she has been called upon to perform for local governments. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

Her firm has also publicly highlighted that experience. In 2019 and 2020, Hall Booth Smith announced Herzog’s recognition as a Rising Star in state, local, and municipal law, specifically referencing her experience with Open Meetings, Open Records, elections, county-government issues, and Open Records litigation. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

Herzog herself has written about county government service.

In a 2021 article titled “Insights From a County Attorney: The Privilege of Government Service,” she wrote that she had spent approximately 15 years attending hundreds of county meetings, including meetings of county commissions, boards of elections, boards of tax assessors, and boards of health. She also wrote that she served as County Attorney for Berrien County while assisting with government legal matters involving several other Georgia counties. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

That extensive experience is precisely why the current dispute with JAW GA News deserves close examination.

JAW GA News has repeatedly submitted communications expressly labeled as PRESS INQUIRIES.

In multiple communications, JAW GA News also expressly stated that the correspondence was NOT an Open Records Act request.

The distinction was not hidden in fine print.

It was stated directly.

Nevertheless, JAW GA News repeatedly received responses framed around Georgia’s Open Records Act, including explanations that the Act does not require government officials to answer questions or interrogatories.

That legal principle itself is not the dispute.

Georgia’s Open Records Act concerns access to existing government records. It does not generally compel a sheriff, county attorney, commissioner, or other official to answer journalistic questions, create explanations, or participate in an interview.

The problem is something different.

JAW GA News was not claiming that the Open Records Act required officials to answer ordinary press questions.

JAW GA News was doing the opposite.

We were expressly saying that certain communications were press inquiries, not Open Records requests.

That is why Herzog’s more recent written response is significant.

In her response, Herzog agreed that “public inquiries” and “requests for production of documents under Georgia’s Open Records Law” should remain distinct categories.

That distinction is useful.

But JAW GA News had already been making it.

Herzog also requested that future Open Records requests be isolated from other communications and preferably include “Open Records Request” in the subject line so that records requests would not be missed in what she described as a “deluge” of communications.

JAW GA News can comply with that administrative request.

Going forward, the distinction will be unmistakable.

PRESS INQUIRY will mean press inquiry.

OPEN RECORDS REQUEST will mean Open Records request.

But that still leaves the prior record unresolved.

If previous emails already said “PRESS INQUIRY,” and if those emails already stated that they were not Open Records requests, why were they nevertheless treated as though Open Records law was the central issue?

That is not merely a technical question.

It goes to how communications from the press are reviewed, categorized, and answered by government officials and their legal counsel.

There is also a broader public record worth examining.

JAW GA News found that Herzog has previously been involved in significant Open Records disputes outside Berrien County.

In October 2024, American Oversight, acting on behalf of Free Speech for People, sent a formal demand letter directly to Herzog regarding a Ware County Open Records dispute.

The letter concerned a single requested attachment to a text message involving Ware County Attorney Anthony Rowell.

According to the demand letter, Free Speech for People had been attempting to obtain the record for approximately seven months. The organization stated that it had submitted three Open Records requests and more than a dozen follow-up communications. Free Speech For People

The letter alleged that Ware County’s continued refusal to produce the attachment was unlawful.

That allegation was made by American Oversight and Free Speech for People. It was not, based on the material reviewed by JAW GA News, a judicial finding that Herzog personally violated the law.

That distinction matters.

But the dispute itself is documented.

The letter also quoted Herzog as previously stating that Georgia’s Open Records Act did not require the answering of interrogatories or questions.

That phrasing is notable because the same basic legal distinction later appeared in her communications with JAW GA News. Free Speech For People

Free Speech for People separately published an article describing the Ware County dispute and criticizing Hall Booth Smith’s position that the requested attachment was private rather than a public record. Again, those were the organization’s allegations and legal arguments, not a court judgment against Herzog. Free Speech For People

The Ware County matter is important for one reason in particular:

It shows that Herzog has previously been directly involved in disputes over the classification and production of government-related information.

JAW GA News also located a 2022 email chain involving Herzog, Coffee County, and Marilyn Marks.

In an April 7, 2022 email, Herzog apologized for a misunderstanding concerning how multiple Open Records requests were being tracked.

She explained that she had asked for requests to remain “separate” so that each request and its follow-up responses could be easily tracked later.

She further stated that she had attempted to review and organize a large number of requests and asked Marks to streamline and narrow them into one current document so that the records could be located and produced accurately and cost-effectively. Douglas Lucas

That correspondence is worth reading carefully because it cuts both ways.

On one hand, it shows Herzog dealing with a substantial volume of Open Records correspondence and trying to impose organizational structure on the process.

On the other hand, it also demonstrates that misunderstandings over categorization and tracking of public-records requests have occurred before.

The Coffee County correspondence also reveals that Herzog was actively involved in determining how responsive records would be gathered from election-board members, county staff, personal accounts, and former employees. Douglas Lucas

That is significant because it further reinforces that Herzog is experienced in identifying, categorizing, gathering, and responding to government-records requests.

JAW GA News also found a separate Berrien County matter from November 2025.

Resident Della Gladieux submitted a formal complaint and demand for investigation concerning a rezoning decision involving property at Old Valdosta Highway and Bradford Road.

The complaint was directed to the Berrien County Board of Commissioners and identified Jennifer Herzog in her position as County Attorney. The complaint alleged significant procedural and ethical violations connected to the rezoning process. WWALS Watershed Coalition

Those allegations were made by the complainant.

JAW GA News is not presenting them as established findings against Herzog.

But their existence is part of the broader public record concerning disputes over Berrien County governmental process.

What does all of this establish?

Not that Herzog has been proven guilty of misconduct.

Not that every citizen or advocacy organization that has disagreed with a county government was correct.

Not that every records dispute involving her proves deliberate obstruction.

What the record does establish is that Jennifer Dorminey Herzog is a highly experienced government attorney whose professional work repeatedly places her at the center of public-records, Open Meetings, county-governance, and transparency issues.

Her own firm says so.

Her own published writing demonstrates it.

Public correspondence involving Coffee County demonstrates it.

The Ware County dispute demonstrates it.

And JAW GA News’ current correspondence with Berrien County demonstrates it again.

That is why the question of how JAW GA News’ press inquiries were handled cannot simply be dismissed as confusion over terminology.

JAW GA News repeatedly made the terminology clear.

A press inquiry asks a government official to respond, clarify, confirm, deny, explain, or comment.

An Open Records request seeks an existing government record.

Those are not the same thing.

A government official is not legally required to answer every press inquiry.

That official may decline.

The official may say “no comment.”

The official may explain that an investigation is active.

The official may state that a legal restriction prevents disclosure.

The official may answer only part of the inquiry.

All of those are legitimate possibilities.

But a refusal to answer a press question should be identified for what it is.

It should not be confused with the separate statutory process governing access to records.

That distinction matters to journalism because press inquiries serve a different purpose.

A records request seeks documents.

A press inquiry gives officials an opportunity to place their explanation on the record.

One obtains evidence.

The other seeks accountability and context.

Good reporting often requires both.

JAW GA News is therefore adopting a clear procedure going forward.

Every records request will be sent separately and identified in the subject line as an OPEN RECORDS REQUEST.

Every press inquiry will be identified as a PRESS INQUIRY.

When a press inquiry is not an Open Records request, that distinction will continue to be stated directly.

If an official declines to answer, JAW GA News will report that accurately.

If an official says “no comment,” we will report that accurately.

If an official says the question cannot be answered because of an active investigation, confidentiality requirement, statutory exemption, or other legitimate limitation, we will report that accurately.

What we will not do is abandon legitimate questions merely because those questions are uncomfortable or inconvenient.

There is another point that deserves emphasis.

JAW GA News has not identified a public disciplinary finding by the State Bar of Georgia against Jennifer Dorminey Herzog in the material reviewed for this article.

Her public professional record remains substantial.

She has been recognized professionally for state and local government work, has held leadership roles connected to county government law, and has extensive experience representing governmental entities. Hall Booth Smith, P.C.

That is precisely why criticism of her work must remain grounded in documents.

JAW GA News will not manufacture a disciplinary history that does not exist.

We will not turn allegations into findings.

We will not declare motives that we cannot prove.

But we will examine inconsistencies.

We will compare what was asked with what was answered.

We will review whether government communications were accurately categorized.

We will examine whether public records were properly handled.

We will review meeting minutes and official correspondence.

And we will continue giving Herzog, Berrien County, the Berrien County Sheriff’s Office, and other relevant officials opportunities to respond.

That is what accountability journalism is supposed to do.

The public does not need another shouting match.

It needs the record.

For JAW GA News, the current record raises several unresolved questions:

Why were press inquiries expressly identified as non-Open-Records communications repeatedly answered through an Open Records framework?

Were those inquiries reviewed in full before responses were issued?

Were they categorized based on their actual content?

Why did the distinction between press inquiries and Open Records requests need to be “clarified” after JAW GA News had already made that distinction repeatedly?

How does Berrien County intend to handle clearly labeled press inquiries going forward?

Will officials provide direct responses, even if that response is simply “no comment”?

Will records requests and press inquiries now be treated consistently as separate communications?

Those questions remain open.

JAW GA News will continue documenting the answers, or the absence of them.

This Spotlight is not about declaring Jennifer Dorminey Herzog guilty of anything.

It is about scrutinizing government representation, transparency, responsiveness, and the handling of press communications by an attorney whose own professional record demonstrates extensive experience in precisely these areas.

That scrutiny is not personal.

It is public-interest journalism.

And it will continue.

We don’t decide who is guilty.

We bring what is hidden into the light, put the record before the people, and let the truth do the judging.

People. Facts. Accountability.

A Stronger Georgia.

Sources:

https://hallboothsmith.com/attorney/jennifer-dorminey-herzog-2?print-posts=print