Attorney Discipline
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Pages | 0043 |
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE Summaries
August 9, 2022, through September 20, 2022
BY LEIGH BURGESS
Disbarments Amber Holly Bunch 28 Stillman St. SE Atlanta, GA 30315 Admitted to the Bar 2016
"On Aug. 9, 2022, the Court accepted the special master’s recommendation and accepted the petition of Amber Holly Bunch (State Bar No. 994313) for voluntary surrender of license, which is tantamount to disbarment.
The matter came before the Court on the report of the special master after the filing of a formal complaint. In her petition, Bunch requested she be allowed to voluntarily surrender her license for her admitted violations, in two separate but related matters, of Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b) and 3.2 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. While one of the matters had not yet been docketed with the Court, was considered confidential and not before the special master, Bunch waived confidentiality and requested that the special master also consider the admissions of fact and rule violations in that matter as part of her petition. In her petition, Bunch admitted the following facts. With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket (SDBD) No. 7462, Bunch admitted that in December 2017, a client retained her for a personal injury action arising from an accident. Bunch eventually settled the client’s claim against the defendant for the policy limit of $100,000 in April 2018 and deposited the settlement check into her IOLTA account. However, Bunch failed to safeguard the settlement funds and allowed the balance in her trust account to fall below the amount she should have held for the client, and she also failed to maintain records reflecting the balance held for her client in the IOLTA account. In addition, Bunch maintained personal funds in her IOLTA account during the same time she held funds for the client; she withdrew funds for her personal use; and she did not deliver the settlement funds to her client until January 2021. She further admitted that she used personal funds to disburse the settlement funds to her client and that she did not disburse the settlement funds from her IOLTA account. During the litigation of her client’s lawsuit, Bunch also failed to adequately respond to discovery sent by the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier on behalf of the client, and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier filed several motions to compel discovery, but Bunch failed to file a response to those motions either. With regard to SDBD No. 7508, the undocketed matter, Bunch admitted that from September 2018 to March 2020, she maintained personal funds in her IOLTA account; she failed to keep records showing the exact balance held for each client; and she failed to safeguard client funds.
Based on her conduct in SDBD No. 7462, Bunch admitted violating Rule 1.3 by failing to respond to motions on behalf of her client. In addition, she admitted violating Rules 1.15 (I) (a) and 1.15 (I) (c) by failing to safeguard the client’s settlement funds, commingling personal and client funds, failing to keep complete records of the client’s funds, failing to properly account for the client’s funds and failing to promptly deliver the settlement funds to the client. Next, Bunch admitted that she violated rules 1.15 (II) (a) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to administer client funds from a trust account, by failing to maintain records reflecting the balance held by her client, and at times having a lower balance in her trust account than the amount she should have been holding for her client. Bunch also admitted that she could not ascertain from her existing records when the client’s money had been withdrawn and for what purpose. Next, Bunch admitted that she violated Rule 3.2 by failing to respond to discovery and motions filed against the client in order to expediate the litigation consistent with the client’s interests. Finally, as to SDBD No. 7508, Bunch admitted that based on her conduct she violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to safeguard client funds, by commingling client and personal funds in her trust account, and by failing to keep records of client funds, including the exact balance held for each client. The maximum penalty for a violation of each of these Rules is disbarment, except Rule 3.2, for which the maximum penalty is a public reprimand.
After the State Bar responded and recommended that the special master accept Bunch’s petition for voluntary surrender, the special master issued a report recommending that the Court accept the petition. The special master agreed that Bunch’s conduct as outlined in her petition supported violations of the Rules referenced. The special master further determined that, although relatively inexperienced in the practice of law, Bunch demonstrated personal conduct that was antithetical to the standards required of those licensed to practice law in this state and that warranted and compelled disbarment.
Michael Anthony Eddings 3475 Oak Valley Road NE Atlanta, GA 30326 Admitted to the Bar 2002
On Aug. 9, 2022, the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Michael Anthony Eddings (State Bar No. 238751) from the practice of law in Georgia. The disciplinary matter came before the Court on the report and recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board, which recommended disbarring Eddings for his violations of Rules 3.3, 4.1, 4.2 (a), 8.1 (a) and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum penalty for a violation of any of these rules is disbarment. Although Eddings vehemently denied violating any of these rules, the special master, who had the opportunity to see and consider the testimony of the witnesses and to review the properly admitted evidence, made credibility determinations adverse to Eddings, and the Review Board adopted those determinations. Finding they were supported by the record, the Court agreed with the special master and the Review Board that Eddings’ conduct violated the above-mentioned rules that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
As background, in its formal complaint, the State Bar asserted that, while representing a client who had been charged with murder, Eddings tape-recorded his July 22, 2017, interview with a material witness who had been charged with making a false statement in connection with the victim’s death. Because the witness’ interview contained information exculpatory as to Eddings’ client and inculpatory as to the witness, Eddings provided a copy of the recording to the assistant district attorney in his client’s case, who subsequently indicted the witness as a co-defendant in the murder case. The two co-defendants were tried separately, and both were acquitted. However, during the witness’ May 2018 trial on the murder charge, Eddings was called by the state to authenticate his recording of the witness’ statement to him, and Eddings testified under oath that he knew at the time he interviewed the witness that the witness was represented by attorney Stacey Jackson; that he was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Jackson to obtain his consent to interview the witness; and that he conducted the interview anyway because he believed he did not need Jackson’s permission. The next day, however, Eddings sent an email to the judge who presided over the murder trial, the chief judge of the circuit, the ADA in the witness’ case and Jackson. In that email, Eddings attempted to disavow his sworn...
To continue reading
Request your trial