Attorney Discipline, 0420 GABJ, GSB Vol. 25, No. 5, Pg. 53

Author:BY JESSICA OGLESBY
Position:Vol. 25 5 Pg. 53
 
FREE EXCERPT

Attorney Discipline

Vol. 25 No. 5 Pg. 53

Georgia Bar Journal

April, 2020

January 14, 2020 through March 9, 2020

Attorney Discipline Summaries

BY JESSICA OGLESBY

Disbarments

Julianne Wesley Holliday

420 10th St.

Columbus, GA 31901

On Feb. 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Julianne Wesley Holliday (State Bar No. 362498) from the practice of law in Georgia based upon three disciplinary matters.

As to S20Y0065, Holliday was retained to represent a client with regard to traffic citations. Despite repeated prompting from the client and despite telling him she had done so, she failed to file the required information to challenge the client’s license suspension. Holliday initially ignored the client’s attempts to contact her but advised him through social media that he could seek reinstatement of his license by attending DUI traffic school. She failed to tell him, however, that reinstatement of his license could not be pursued for one year. After the client terminated Holliday’s services, she failed to refund his fee despite asserting she would do so. Additionally, there was evidence that during the time she represented the client, Holliday served as a public defender and thus was not authorized to represent private clients for a fee. The Bar asserted that Holliday violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a)(3) and (4), 1.16 (d), 3.2 and 8.4 (a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16 and 3.2 is a public reprimand and of Rules 1.2, 1.3 and 8.4 (a)(4) is disbarment.

As to S20Y0066, Holliday was hired to represent a client in a habeas corpus action. Despite the client providing a draft petition, Holliday failed to file the requested petition, and the client had to file it pro se in order to preserve his rights to subsequently seek federal habeas corpus relief. When the client’s family attempted to contact Holliday, they were unable to do so. The Bar asserted that Holliday violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a)(3) and (4), 1.16 (d) and 3.2.

As to S20Y0067, Holliday was hired by a client to complete work undertaken by a previous attorney in a divorce case. During the representation, the client learned that the counterparty’s proposed decree h ad been presented to the judge without the client’s requested modifications or a quitclaim deed that was supposed to be included. Holliday initially told the client she didn’t understand what had happened but later acknowledged that she failed to include the deed. Although...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP