Attorney Discipline
| Jurisdiction | Georgia,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 28 No. 4 Pg. 0043 |
| Pages | 0043 |
| Publication year | 2023 |
Attorney Discipline Summaries
From October 4, 2022, through October 25, 2022
BY LEIGH BURGESS
Disbarments
Edward Hine Jr.
139 Shoals Ferry Road SE
Rome, GA 30161
Admitted to the Bar 1976
On Oct. 4, 2022, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted the petition of Edward Hine Jr. (State Bar No. 355775) for voluntary surrender of his license, which is tantamount to disbarment. The disciplinary matter came before the Court on Hine's petition which was filed before the issuance of a formal complaint but after the Court rejected an earlier petition for voluntary discipline.
In this petition, Hine admitted that, in connection with two client matters, he violated Rules 1.4, 1.8 (a), 1.15 (I) (a) and 1.15 (II) (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4 and 1.8 (a) is a public reprimand, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.15 (I) (a) and 1.15 (II) (b) is disbarment. Although Hine set out some factors in mitigation of discipline, he acknowledged that the seriousness of his misconduct justified the surrender of his license.
In Hine I, Hine admitted that in November 2018, he was appointed as executor of a client's estate; that he deposited the estate's funds into his trust account; and that he used those funds to pay the estate's expenses and to make distributions to the estate's beneficiaries. Hine further admitted that, without the consent of the estate's beneficiaries, he transferred $129, 071.50 from the funds that had been entrusted to him to his operating account, despite the fact that, as of that time, the fees and expenses that Hine had charged to the estate totaled only $59,363.50, and that he considered the difference between the earned fees and allocated funds to be a loan. Hine asserted that he intended to repay the loan before making the final distributions to the state's beneficiaries, but that he failed to repay the entire amount of the loan such that the final distribution to the beneficiaries in 2020, caused an overdraft of $3,344.31 in his trust account—an overdraft that he covered with personal funds. Subsequently, Hine reported the matter to the State Bar and sent a letter explaining the situation to the estate's beneficiaries.
Although not admitted in Hine I, Hine admitted in his petition that in that letter, he not only explained the situation described above, but also explained to the beneficiaries that the will underlying the estate authorized him to charge an hourly fee; that under the will's terms, the total amount of earned fees to which he was entitled was $43,526; that he nevertheless collected $59,363.50 in fees from the estate; and that he was, therefore, refunding the $15,837.50 fee overcharge to the beneficiaries. He asserted that he fully disclosed both of these instances of misconduct related to the estate to the Bar and that the beneficiaries of the estate made no claim against him.
With regard to a separate trust matter, which also was not admitted in Hine I, Hine admitted in his petition that he was the sole trustee of a trust established by a client who died in October 2003, and that the trust provided that the remainder interest was to be distributed for the benefit of a college after the death of the client's wife. Hine admitted that in January 2011, he executed a promissory note to the trust in exchange for an $85,000 loan from the trust to Hine, with an apparent maturity date on the note of Dec. 31, 2011. Although he claimed that the client's wife was aware of the loan and repeatedly permitted him to defer repayment of the loan, the wife passed away in September 2018, and Hine presented no documentation proving either of those facts. Regardless, Hine admitted that he remained the trustee of the trust and the obligor on the note for years and that, upon the passing of the client's wife, he paid the balances of the proceeds of the trust to the college named as the remainder beneficiary, but did not forward to the remainder beneficiary the $85,000 plus interest that he owed the trust pursuant to the note until 2021, after he was prompted to do so as a result of the Bar's investigation into the estate matter.
Hine admitted that by his actions, he violated Rule 1.4 in that he failed to adequately consult with his clients as to matters; Rule 1.8 in that there was no evidence that he had ever obtained informed consent from any of the interested parties prior to borrowing money from the sums entrusted to his care; Rule 1.15 (I) (a) in that he commingled funds over which he had a fiduciary duty and converted them to his own use; and Rule 1.15 (II) (b) in that he withdrew funds belonging to the estate and trust accounts over and above attorney fees he had actually earned and never debited those funds against the accounts of the clients, eventually having to deposit significant personal funds into his trust account to make up shortfalls in the clients' accounts. Further, Hine acknowledged that under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, to which the Court looks for guidance in deciding disciplinary cases, the intentional nature of his conduct coupled with the fact that his conduct had the potential to seriously harm his clients called for the presumptive punishment for his actions to be disbarment. Hine listed his substantial experience in the practice of law as a factor in aggravation of discipline, but also asserted in mitigation that he had no prior disciplinary history despite 45 years in the practice of law; that he made a timely and good faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct; that he had demonstrated a cooperative attitude in these disciplinary proceedings; and that he had otherwise exhibited good character, integrity and a positive reputation in the community. Nevertheless, he asserted that the seriousness of his misconduct justified the surrender of his license. The State Bar filed a response to the petition agreeing with his recitation of the facts and arguing that the law supported the loss of his license.
Franklin David McCrea
418 W. 15th St.
P.O. Box 412
Alma, GA 31510
Admitted to the Bar 1992
On Oct. 4, 2022, the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Franklin David McCrea (State Bar No. 486850) from the practice of law in Georgia. The disciplinary matter came before the Court on a consolidated report and recommendation by the special master addressing two formal complaints and recommending that the Court disbar McCrea for his violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with two client matters.
The record reflected that after the State Bar filed its two complaints, which were docketed as State Disciplinary Board Docket (SDBD) Nos. 7322 and 7448, McCrea participated in the disciplinary proceedings initially, but for 17 months leading up to the Court's order, it appeared he ignored the proceedings. Specifically, in connection with SDBD No. 7322, he failed to respond to the notice of investigation, and although he acknowledged service of the formal complaint, he failed to file a timely answer. In response to the State Bar's motion for default, however, he admitted he had no defense to the allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial