In re Csehy, 295 Ga. 853

Background

Rand J. Csehy pled nolo contendere to two counts of possession of controlled substances and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; sentenced to concurrent probation on drug charges and a suspended term on the firearm charge.
He filed a petition for voluntary discipline requesting a one- to two-year suspension under Bar Rule 4-102(d) for violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2), citing addiction and mitigating circumstances (rehabilitation efforts, no client harm, remorse, prior treatment).
Csehy described trauma, prior rehabilitation, participation in AA and the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program, and acceptance of responsibility; he had a prior formal letter of admonition for an IOLTA violation.
After filing the petition, a September 15, 2014 Cobb County trial court proceeding showed Csehy exhibiting signs of impairment; a drug test detected cocaine and amphetamines, and he was held in contempt and jailed five days.
The State Bar opposed the one- to two-year suspension, emphasized the firearm during the offense, absence of medical proof of recovery, ongoing substance use shown by the later drug test, prior discipline, and argued a short suspension would undermine public confidence and fail to protect the public.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the record and rejected Csehy’s petition for voluntary discipline, concluding the requested suspension was inadequate given the convictions, prior discipline, evidence of continuing substance abuse, and that the requested suspension was shorter than his criminal probation.

Issues

Issue	Csehy's Argument	State Bar's Argument	Held
Appropriate disciplinary sanction for criminal convictions and Rule 8.4(a)(2) violation	One- to two-year suspension is sufficient given mitigating factors (rehab efforts, remorse, no client harm, prior limited discipline)	Suspension of one to two years is inadequate given convictions (including firearm), ongoing addiction, prior discipline, and public protection concerns	Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; one- to two-year suspension inadequate
Relevance of mitigating evidence (rehab, AA, L.A.P. participation)	Mitigating factors justify suspension rather than disbarment; cites prior cases with similar suspensions	Mitigation insufficient without proof of sustained recovery; subsequent positive drug test undermines mitigation	Court found mitigation insufficient in light of continuing substance use and other factors
Effect of continuing practice while under probation and after conviction	Csehy stated he was winding down practice and assisting clients	State Bar emphasized appearance of a convicted attorney still practicing harms public confidence and necessitates stronger discipline	Continued practice and reported impairment supported rejecting voluntary suspension request
Weight of prior disciplinary history	Prior admonition was minimal; does not preclude suspension instead of disbarment	Prior formal admonition combined with new convictions supports harsher sanction	Prior discipline contributed to rejection of lenient sanction

Key Cases Cited

In the Matter of Waldrop, 283 Ga. 80 (2008) (affirming 24-month suspension for felony drug possession as first-offender mitigation)
In the Matter of Patteson, 262 Ga. 591 (1992) (30-month suspension for felony controlled-substance conviction)
In the Matter of Calhoun, 268 Ga. 877 (1998) (six-month suspension for DUI and related conviction where mitigation warranted shorter suspension)
In the Matter of Caroway, 279 Ga. 381 (2005) (suspension imposed in case involving drug charges and DUI; mitigation considered)
In the Matter of Richbourg, 293 Ga. 576 (2013) (consideration that suspension shorter than criminal sentence/probation is disfavored)
In the Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488 (1981) (discipline serves to punish, deter, and preserve public confidence)
In the Matter of Stoner, 246 Ga. 581 (1978) (continued practice by convicted attorney undermines public confidence)