In re Coulter, 304 Ga. 81

Gary L. Coulter, a lawyer admitted in 1971, admitted violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.5, 1.7, 1.8(a), 1.15(I), and 1.15(II) based on his long-term representation of a client and client-related businesses beginning in 2003.
From about 2010 he managed receipt, deposit, transfer, and disbursement of client funds, operating at times multiple non‑trust bank accounts (12 accounts) and administering over $1 million in 2011 alone.
Coulter paid himself roughly $400,000 in fees in the final ten months of representation, failed to provide billing after 2008, and could not reconcile invoices produced later; he did not maintain required trust‑account records or promptly notify the client of receipts.
He took more than 100 pieces of the client’s art (estimated value > $850,000) as security and stored it unsecured in his office; many transactions involved commingling and transfers to his operating account as fees.
The special master recommended a four‑year suspension; the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors, found extensive trust‑account violations and prior discipline, and concluded disbarment was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate discipline for admitted ethics violations (trust account, conflicts, fees)	Petitioner (Bar) sought substantial discipline given fiduciary breaches and scope of misconduct	Coulter sought voluntary discipline (earlier proposed two‑year suspension) and urged mitigating factors (remorse, reputation, practice changes)	Court held disbarment appropriate given massive, prolonged trust‑account violations, intent to violate rules, multiple aggravating factors, and prior discipline
Whether trust‑account violations warranted disbarment	Bar argued trust‑account mismanagement, commingling, and misappropriation justified the harshest sanction	Coulter argued lack of dishonesty intent and mitigating circumstances	Court found violations were extensive, intentional or sufficiently knowing, and compared to precedents disbarment was warranted
Effect of prior discipline on sanction	Bar pointed to prior admonition and public reprimand as aggravation	Coulter emphasized remediation and character evidence as mitigating	Court treated prior discipline as an aggravating factor, supporting disbarment
Weight of mitigating evidence (remorse, reputation, office changes)	Coulter urged these factors to lessen sanction	Bar argued mitigation insufficient given record gaps, billing discrepancies, and loss to client	Court credited limited mitigation but found it outweighed by aggravating factors and the seriousness of violations

In the Matter of Coulter, 301 Ga. 895 (Ga. 2017) (prior appellate consideration of Coulter’s voluntary‑discipline submission)
In the Matter of Howard, 292 Ga. 413 (Ga. 2013) (trust account violations are exceptionally serious)
In the Matter of Oellerich, 278 Ga. 22 (Ga. 2004) (disbarment for lawyer acquiring adverse financial interest from client/executor)
In the Matter of Henley, 267 Ga. 366 (Ga. 1996) (financial/personal interests that affect judgment are blatant impropriety)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (Ga. 1996) (ABA Standards instructive for sanctions)
In the Matter of Dansby, 274 Ga. 393 (Ga. 2001) (disbarment often appropriate where trust‑account violations were intentional)
In the Matter of Anderson, 286 Ga. 137 (Ga. 2009) (disbarment for attorney who violated trust rules and had prior discipline)
In the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378 (Ga. 2017) (disbarment for misappropriation and commingling of trust funds)