Attorney Discipline Summaries

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 30 No. 1 Pg. 0051
• Pages: 0051

Attorney Discipline Summaries Vol. 30 No. 1 Pg. 51 Georgia Bar Journal August 2024

Attorney Discipline Summaries

BY LEONARD CARLIN

Disbarments

Andrea Jo Anne David-Vega 242 Culver St., Suite 204 Lawrenceville, GA 30046 Admitted to the Bar 2006

This disciplinary matter came before the Court on the report and recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (Review Board) that the Court adopt the findings and conclusions of the special master, who recommended respondent Andrea Jo Anne David-Vega (State Bar No. 364871) receive at least a two-year suspension for her violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.4 (a), 8.1 (a), 8.4 (a) (4) and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (GRPC). David-Vega, who was admitted to the State Bar in 2006, filed exceptions to the Review Board's report, challenging the special master's recommended discipline and requested a six- to nine-month suspension. The State Bar did not file exceptions to the Review Board's report; however, the State Bar did file a response to David-Vega's exceptions, noting that disbarment was the presumptive discipline in this case but that it was satisfied with the special master's recommendation of at least a two-year suspension. The Court agreed with the special master and the Review Board that significant discipline was warranted; however, given the facts of the underlying matter and David-Vega's admitted violations of the GRPC, it concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

The record shows that on June 30, 2020, David-Vega's longtime client filed a grievance against her with the State Bar. On or about July 22, 2020, the State Bar mailed the grievance to David-Vega and directed her to respond to the grievance no later than Aug. 10, 2020. After David-Vega failed to timely respond, the State Bar sent her a letter on or about March 3, 2021, and directed her to respond to the grievance no later than March 13, 2021. David-Vega again failed to respond to the grievance, and on or about March 30, 2021, the State Bar issued a Notice of Investigation against her, informing her that it appeared that she had violated several GRPC. On Jan. 14, 2022, following the investigation, the State Bar filed the underlying formal complaint. Although David-Vega acknowledged service of the complaint, she did not timely file an answer and, on March 24, 2022, the State Bar filed a motion for default pursuant to Bar Rule 4-212 (a).

On May 20, 2022, David-Vega filed a motion to stay, asserting that she intended to submit a petition for voluntary discipline, in which she would acknowledge wrongdoing but would include significant mitigating evidence. On May 31, 2022, counsel for David-Vega represented that David-Vega was in the process of drafting the petition for voluntary discipline

and would "share" the petition with the State Bar and the special master "in a couple of weeks." The State Bar informed David-Vega and the special master that it had no objection to David-Vega filing a petition for voluntary discipline and agreed to David-Vega's proposed timeline. Based on this representation, the State Bar did not file a formal response to the motion to stay. However, David-Vega never filed the petition. Instead, on July 21, 2022—more than four months after her answer to the formal complaint was due—David-Vega filed an answer and a motion to open default. On July 29, 2022, the State Bar filed a timely response to David-Vega's motion to open default, requesting that the special master grant the State Bar's motion for default and deny or dismiss David-Vega's motion on the ground that the State Bar had relied on her representation that she intended to file a petition for voluntary discipline and that the State Bar, the disciplinary process and the public would be prejudiced by opening the default.

On Aug. 8, 2022, the special master issued his first report and recommendation, in which he granted the State Bar's motion for default, noting that David-Vega failed to articulate a legitimate basis to reopen the default. The special master granted a hearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances so that David-Vega could offer evidence related to the recommended sanction. The special master then summarized the facts alleged and violations charged in the formal complaint, which were deemed admitted pursuant to David-Vega's default.

The admitted facts are as follows: In August 2016, Milan retained David-Vega to pursue his personal injury claim based on an automobile accident, in which he suffered a serious brain injury. David-Vega met with Milan to discuss his claim and then contacted the liability insurer for the defendants, identifying herself as the attorney representing Milan. However, she did not provide him with a written contingency fee agreement. In March 2018, after not hearing from David-Vega for a "[l]ong time," Milan emailed her, informing her that his injuries from the accident had worsened. In May 2018, she discussed with Milan the status of his claim and his desire to update his will and scheduled a time for him to come to her office to sign the necessary documents. However, when Milan arrived for his appointment, David-Vega was not in the office and had arranged for her husband, who was not a lawyer, to provide Milan with the paperwork.

On May 26, 2018, following this meeting, Milan emailed David-Vega to schedule a time to discuss his case. She did not respond to him, cut off communication with the insurer and failed to file the suit by August 2018, at which point the limitation period had run. Between January 2019 and February 2020, Milan called David-Vega's office more than 65 times to ask about the status of his case and continued contacting her via email and text message through April 2020. During this time, her staff scheduled six different conference calls for Milan to speak with David-Vega, but she missed each of the calls. Occasionally, she would respond via email or text message, claiming that his email had been sent to her spam folder or that she had another obligation and needed time to respond to his questions. On April 30, 2020, Milan texted David-Vega but David-Vega did not respond to this message. On May 5, 2020, Milan notified David-Vega by email and U.S. mail that he was terminating her representation and requested that she provide him with his file. Less than five minutes after David-Vega received this email, she texted Milan asking, "Mr. Milan, are you firing me? Why?" The two had no further contact and David-Vega failed to provide Milan with the requested files.

Milan then filed the underlying grievance with the...