304 Ga. 442
Ga.2018Background
- Respondent David Thomas Dorer (Bar No. 934408) filed a petition for voluntary discipline seeking a Review Panel reprimand for an alleged violation of Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(4).
- In Nov. 2014 Dorer prepared a verified answer in a forfeiture matter, signed the client’s name on the verification, had his assistant notarize it, and filed it; he later met with the client but did not substitute a verification containing the client’s own signature.
- A Houston County grand jury charged Dorer (and his assistant) under OCGA §§ 16-10-20 and 16-10-20.1; Dorer entered a negotiated plea to a misdemeanor violation of OCGA § 45-17-8(e) relating to notarial identification requirements.
- Dorer asserted he had the client’s express permission to sign and disclosed the signature with a notation (“WEP DD”), and he contended only Rule 8.4(a)(4) (dishonesty/fraud/deceit/misrepresentation) was implicated, not Rule 8.4(a)(3) (crime involving moral turpitude).
- The State Bar recommended accepting the petition and a Review Panel reprimand; Dorer cited precedent treating similar conduct as warranting a reprimand.
- The Supreme Court rejected the petition because the pleadings lacked sufficient factual admissions to establish dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation required for Rule 8.4(a)(4); the Court declined to accept the proposed discipline without a fuller factual record. Chief Justice Melton dissented, arguing the plea and admissions were sufficient and a reprimand should be accepted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s admissions establish a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) | State Bar: underlying conduct (false/notarized signature) supports 8.4(a)(4) | Dorer: signed with client’s permission and disclosed lawyer-signed initials; no deceit | Rejected: petition lacks admissions showing dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation required for 8.4(a)(4) |
| Whether petitioner’s misdemeanor plea establishes moral turpitude under Rule 8.4(a)(3) | State Bar: felony/related charges alleged; discipline appropriate | Dorer: misdemeanor plea did not involve moral turpitude; argues only 8.4(a)(4) applies | Court: record insufficient to determine 8.4(a)(3) applicability; did not accept petition on that basis |
| Whether a Review Panel reprimand is appropriate sanction | Both Dorer and Bar: prior cases support reprimand for similar conduct | Dorer: seeks reprimand as appropriate resolution | Court: declined to accept reprimand because factual record was too sparse to conclude violation occurred |
| Whether petition for voluntary discipline contains sufficient factual detail | State Bar: supports acceptance on offered facts | Dorer: offered limited admissions in petition and plea | Held: petition insufficient; Court rejects voluntary-discipline petition and asks for fuller factual basis |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Davis, 291 Ga. 169, 728 S.E.2d 548 (Review Panel reprimand for falsifying client’s signature on court documents)
- In the Matter of West, 301 Ga. 901, 804 S.E.2d 340 (Review Panel reprimand for signing client’s application without intent to deceive)
- In the Matter of Swain, 290 Ga. 678, 725 S.E.2d 244 (public reprimand for notarizing signature outside signer’s presence)
- In the Matter of Braziel, 303 Ga. 154, 810 S.E.2d 476 (rejected voluntary-discipline petition for uncertainty in underlying facts)
- In the Matter of Ellis, 296 Ga. 83, 764 S.E.2d 856 (reprimand for failure to supervise employee who signed client’s name without authorization)
- In the Matter of Youn, 300 Ga. 134, 793 S.E.2d 379 (accepted voluntary discipline for conviction involving moral turpitude)
- In the Matter of Jones, 293 Ga. 264, 744 S.E.2d 6 (misdemeanors involving dishonesty may constitute moral turpitude)
- In the Matter of Nicholson, 299 Ga. 737, 791 S.E.2d 776 (discussing evidentiary record needed to accept voluntary discipline)