Legal Ethics
| Publication year | 2020 |
Legal Ethics
Patrick Longan
Mercer University School of Law, LONGAN_P@law.mercer.edu
[Page 165]
This Survey covers the period from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020.1 The Article discusses developments with respect to attorney discipline, ineffective assistance of counsel, bar admission, disqualification of counsel, judicial conduct, malpractice and other civil claims, contempt, several miscellaneous cases, formal advisory opinions (State Bar of Georgia and the American Bar Association), and amendments to the Georgia Rules of Professional conduct.
A. Disbarments2
1. Trust Account and Other Financial Issues
The Georgia Supreme Court disbarred six attorneys during the Survey period for misconduct that primarily related to their trust accounts or other financial issues.
Two of the cases involved voluntary surrenders of the lawyers' licenses. The supreme court accepted the voluntary surrender of Matthew A. Dickason's license in response to numerous grievances relating to his failure to account for funds that he received as a fiduciary in connection with real estate closings.3 Sarah M. Wayman voluntarily surrendered her license after admitting that, although she received
[Page 166]
$75,000 in funds that should have been distributed to her client and certain third parties, she did not distribute those funds to the appropriate parties and could account for only $5,000 of the funds.4
The supreme court disbarred Andrew D. Taylor as a matter of reciprocal discipline after he was disbarred in Nevada.5 Mr. Taylor lost his Nevada license because he misappropriated more than one million dollars of client funds, commingled client funds with his, and opened numerous law firms and trust accounts in an attempt to mislead the bar. Mr. Taylor had also entered into litigation-advance loan agreements on behalf of clients without their knowledge, used the proceeds for his own expenses, failed to repay the loans, failed to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities, and made false statements during the disciplinary process.6
Carla Burton Gaines was disbarred after she failed to distribute over $337,000 she held in trust and instead commingled the funds with her own and converted them to her own use.7 Ms. Gaines falsely told the company that was to receive the funds that she had wired them, and the company sued her and obtained a default judgment against her. In a post-judgment deposition, Ms. Gaines testified falsely that she had transferred $280,000 of the funds to a third-party in error, and thereafter she failed to respond to discovery requests, even when she was ordered to do so. The court held her in contempt, and Ms. Gaines told the court that she would comply with the court's orders. When she did not, the trial court ordered her to be incarcerated until she complied. Ms. Gaines did not respond to the State Bar's complaint and was held in default.8 In aggravation, the special master found that Ms. Gaines had a prior disciplinary history, had a dishonest or selfish motive, committed multiple offenses, engaged in bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, had substantial experience in the practice of law, and was indifferent to making restitution.9
The supreme court disbarred Alexander E. Kahn for violating multiple Rules of conduct in connection with his representation of one client.10 Mr. Kahn defaulted in the disciplinary process and therefore admitted that he induced the client to invest $300,000 in an LLC that Mr. Kahn had formed, and that in connection with that investment Mr.
[Page 167]
Kahn failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 1.8(a)11 (business transactions with clients). Mr. Kahn did not provide documentation of the client's supposed investment in the LLC and did not upon request return the client's money. Mr. Kahn also failed: (1) to provide the client with copies of tax returns that he supposedly was preparing; (2) to provide documentation about his representation of the client with respect to a tax penalty that had been assessed; (3) to file a tax return that he had prepared and the client had signed; and (4) to prepare a will that he promised to prepare for the client.12
The supreme court disbarred Clarence A. Sydnor, IV after he settled a client's claim, forged the client's name on the insurance company's check, deposited the money into his operating account, failed to inform the client about the funds, and failed to deliver the money to the client.13 Mr. Sydnor failed to respond to numerous inquiries from the client about the status of the settlement.14 The supreme court noted that Mr. Sydnor acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.15
2. Client Abandonment and Lack of Communication
The supreme court disbarred eight attorneys for misconduct that included client abandonment and failure to communicate.
The supreme court disbarred Christopher John Thompson because he abandoned a client and did not respond to the state bar's formal complaint.16 Mr. Thompson had been hired to represent a client in a personal injury case and, although he filed the complaint, he thereafter took no action in the matter. The case was eventually dismissed.17 The supreme court noted the absence of mitigating circumstances and disbarred Mr. Thompson.18
The supreme court disbarred Johnnie Mae Graham.19 Ms. Graham defaulted and thereby admitted that she had undertaken to represent a client in a claim related to a car accident but (after filing the complaint) abandoned the matter, failed to communicate with the client, did not return the client's file, and did not respond to the state bar's requests for information regarding the matter. The client's case was dismissed because Ms. Graham did not appear at a hearing. The court found that
[Page 168]
there were two aggravating factors, substantial experience in the practice of law and previous disciplinary history.20
The supreme court disbarred Lesley Annis,21 who accepted fees to represent two clients in bankruptcy matters but then abandoned the clients and stopped communicating with them.22 Ms. Annis defaulted in the disciplinary process.23
Jeffrey L. Sakas was disbarred24 after he defaulted in connection with three formal complaints that raised six different disciplinary matters. Mr. Sakas had been disciplined twice before in recent years, once by public reprimand and once by suspension. Many of the new matters involved Mr. Sakas representing clients while he was under that suspension. In two other matters, Mr. Sakas did not do the agreed-upon work, did not respond to the clients' inquiries, and refused to return the clients' retainers.25 In another matter, Mr. Sakas followed the same pattern and ended up in fee arbitration with his former clients, where he initially made numerous false statements about the work he allegedly performed.26 Mr. Sakas agreed to represent another client who was being evicted by the client's mortgage lender. Mr. Sakas filed an appeal of the eviction order but, after Mr. Sakas did not respond to a dispositive motion filed by the lender, the court granted summary judgment to the lender and issued a writ of possession. Mr. Sakas also had advised his client not to comply with the court's order to make the client's mortgage payments to the court registry. Mr. Sakas made another attempt, in a separate suit, to stop the eviction, but again he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed. Mr. Sakas then refused to return the client's file.27
The special master found numerous grounds for finding that the presumptive sanction under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions was disbarment. The special master found no mitigating circumstances and found in aggravation that Mr. Sakas acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed numerous violations of the Rules, showed bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and had substantial experience in the
[Page 169]
practice of law.28 The supreme court accepted the special master's recommendation to disbar Mr. Sakas.29
An attorney accepted a retainer in excess of $29,000 to handle a divorce case. The monthly invoices sent by the attorney totaled $12,866 as of September 2014. When the case was resolved approximately a year later, the parties agreed to have the trial court decide the issue of attorney's fees. However, the lawyer did not file a fee petition, respond to the spouse's fee petition, attend the hearing on fees, respond to numerous requests for information from her client, or refund the difference between her earned fees and the retainer. The lawyer moved to Maine without leaving any forwarding information and failed to respond to the state bar's notice of discipline.30 Finding violations of Rules 1.2(a),31 1.3,32 1.4,33 1.5,34 1.15(I),35 1.15(II),36 1.16(d),37 and 3.2,38 the supreme court disbarred her.39 The court noted as aggravating factors that the lawyer committed multiple offenses, had a dishonest or selfish motive, had substantial experience in the practice of law, and showed indifference to making restitution.40
The supreme court disbarred Julianne W. Holliday after she defaulted with respect to three grievances.41 In the first, she represented a client with respect to several traffic matters but failed to make a timely filing to prevent the suspension of the client's license and then falsely told the client that she had done so. After his license was suspended, the client attempted unsuccessfully and repeatedly to reach Ms. Holliday until she sent him an incorrect message on social media that he could get his license back by attending DUI school. The client fired Ms. Holliday, but she did not return his fee despite promising to do so. There was also evidence that during this time Ms. Holliday was not authorized to represent private clients, because she was serving as a public...
To continue reading
Request your trial