In re Davis, 290 Ga. 857

Davis is a Georgia attorney admitted in 1990 who faced two consolidated disciplinary proceedings.
The main matter concerns Davis’s representation in a Cobb County child-support contempt action where the client sought to terminate his obligation using DNA evidence; he paid $1,200 of a quoted $1,500 fee.
The client alleged Davis failed to appear for a December 3, 2008 hearing and effectively withdrew without informing him; Davis’s responses to the grievance and Notice of Investigation were untimely.
The State Bar charged violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, 8.4(a)(4), and 9.3, and invoked Bar Rule 4-102(d) and Bar Rule 4-103; Davis faced a separate second matter for Rule 9.3 with a timely response issue.
A special master found violations and recommended disbarment based on extensive aggravating factors and lack of mitigating factors; the Review Panel adopted these findings; Davis objected, and the Court affirmed disbarment.
The second matter was resolved by default in the special master, and the main matter formed the basis for the disbarment sanction ultimately ordered by the Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Davis violate multiple Bar Rules in the main matter?	State Bar asserts violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, 8.4(a)(4), 9.3.	Davis contends the facts do not support violations.	Yes; violations proven and disbarment warranted.
Did Davis' responses constitute false statements in disciplinary proceedings?	State Bar shows Davis made false statements in responses and testimony.	Davis argues statements were not deliberate falsehoods.	Yes; false statements established and sanction appropriate.
Did the second matter establish a Rule 9.3 violation for failure to timely respond?	State Bar maintained timely response was required and not provided.	Davis notes default granted and disputes misconduct.	Yes; second matter supports discipline.
Are aggravating factors controlling and mitigate lack of factors to justify disbarment?	State Bar relies on prior discipline, multiple offenses, and conduct harm.	Davis argues lack of intent or harm and insufficient aggravation mitigating by discipline.	Disbarment appropriate given aggravation and lack of mitigation.

In re O’Brien-Carriman, 288 Ga. 239 (Ga. 2010) (false statements during disciplinary proceedings justify sanction)
In re Shehane, 276 Ga. 168 (Ga. 2003) (serious misconduct warrants significant discipline)
In re Friedman, 270 Ga. 5 (Ga. 1998) (candor and integrity required; disciplinary responses scrutinized)
In re Ellison, 280 Ga. 303 (Ga. 2006) (review panel findings binding if supported by evidence)
In re Morse, 265 Ga. 353 (Ga. 1995) (prior discipline and aggravation relevant to sanctions)