Attorney Discipline, 0220 GABJ, GSB Vol. 25, No. 4, Pg. 43

Author:BY JESSICA OGLESBY
Position:Vol. 25 4 Pg. 43
 
FREE EXCERPT

Attorney Discipline

Vol. 25 No. 4 Pg. 43

Georgia Bar Journal

February, 2020

Oct. 8, 2019 - Jan. 13, 2020

Attorney Discipline Summaries

BY JESSICA OGLESBY

Disbarments Millard C. Farmer Jr.

P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301

On Nov. 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Millard C. Farmer (State Bar No. 255300) from the practice of law in Georgia. The formal complaint upon which the disciplinary proceedings were based alleged Farmer violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.6 (a), 1.8 (b), 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 (d), 4.4, and 8.4 (a) (1) and (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.6 (a), 1.8 (b), 3.4, and 8.4 (a) (1) and (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for the remaining violations is a public reprimand. After the State Bar filed its formal complaint, the facts were deemed admitted by default as Farmer’s first answer did not conform to the requirements of applicable Bar Rules, and he subsequently failed to file an amended response.

Farmer was retained in 2008 by a client to pursue a malpractice action against the attorney who had handled her 2006 divorce. The client’s ex-husband, who was joined as a defendant in 2010, made a settlement offer of $50,000, the shortfall from the division of marital property that occurred due to the previous attorney’s negligence. Farmer refused that offer and threatened to make the case “expensive and painful” unless the ex-husband paid $150,000, which he did. The client hired Farmer again in 2011 to handle a custody matter. Throughout this representation, Farmer employed litigation tactics that he referred to as “Conflictineering,” the purpose of which was to disrupt the judicial process to the point that either the court or the opposing party would capitulate for the sake of restoring order. Farmer filed repeated frivolous motions, pursued baseless appeals and routinely made ad hominem attacks against parties, the trial judge and court staff, and participants who took positions contrary to those of his client.

Based upon the above-described conduct, Farmer was also found liable in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) action for multiple acts of racketeering, including attempted theft by extortion, attempted bribery, intimidation of a court officer, influencing witnesses and employing interstate travel, in concert with others.

In aggravation, the Court noted...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP