In re Davis, 303 Ga. 564

Background

Respondent Edward N. Davis filed a petition for voluntary discipline under Bar Rule 4-227(c) after a Formal Complaint alleging multiple violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(b), and 8.4(a)(4).
Davis admitted violations of Rules 1.15(I)(a) and 1.15(II)(b) and sought a Review Panel reprimand, despite disbarment being the maximum sanction for those violations. The State Bar approved the negotiated petition but did not oppose it.
Davis refused to admit a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) for notarizing a deed signature that had not been executed in his presence; he argued lack of intent and absence of harm.
The Court noted Rule 8.4(a)(4) does not require proof of harm and any implicit intent element concerns whether the lawyer’s conduct was intended or likely to mislead, not whether the lawyer intended to violate the Rule.
Davis admitted knowingly notarizing a signature that was not signed in his presence and did not show steps taken to verify the signature or that he intended later correction; he also did not acknowledge wrongful conduct.
Given Davis’s refusal to admit a Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation and the State Bar’s neutral position, the Court rejected the petition for voluntary discipline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should accept Davis’s petition for voluntary discipline	Bar supported petition but did not oppose; petition admitted some misconduct and sought reprimand	Davis sought acceptance while refusing to admit Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation, citing lack of intent and no harm	Petition rejected because Davis would not admit conduct amounting to Rule 8.4(a)(4) and Bar took no position on sufficiency of proof
Whether Davis violated Rule 8.4(a)(4) by notarizing an unexecuted signature	Bar implied facts could support a violation	Davis denied violation, asserting he believed the wife had signed and lacked intent to deceive; emphasized no harm	Court found the Rule does not require harm; Davis’s conduct (notarizing a signature not executed in his presence) supports a violation and his denial prevented voluntary discipline
Role of intent and harm in proving Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation	ABA and precedents treat absence of intent/harm as mitigating, not dispositive	Davis argued lack of intent/no harm negates violation	Court: lack of intent/no harm may mitigate sanction but do not negate the violation per Rule 8.4(a)(4)
Comparability to In the Matter of West	West previously accepted for voluntary discipline where intent to deceive was doubtful and Bar conceded proof issues	Davis argued similarity to West	Court distinguished West: facts here show notarization despite knowledge the signature was not in presence and no corrective intent, so West is inapplicable

Key Cases Cited

In the Matter of West, 300 Ga. 777, 798 S.E.2d 219 (Ga. 2017) (addressed petition for voluntary discipline where admitted facts suggested possible Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation and Bar took no position)
In the Matter of Iwu, 301 Ga. 52, 799 S.E.2d 155 (Ga. 2017) (rejected a petition for voluntary discipline where attorney admitted facts supporting a Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation but refused to admit the violation)
In the Matter of West, 301 Ga. 901, 804 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. 2017) (accepted a renewed petition for voluntary discipline and discussed the implicit intent element of Rule 8.4(a)(4))
In the Matter of Swain, 290 Ga. 678, 725 S.E.2d 244 (Ga. 2012) (recognized lack of intent to cause harm as a mitigating factor for Rule 8.4(a)(4) violations)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 470 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. 1996) (Court looks to ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate sanctions)