300 Ga. 645
Ga.2017Background
- Respondent David J. Farnham (State Bar No. 255410), admitted to the Georgia bar in 1986, filed a petition for voluntary discipline after three formal ethics complaints.
- SDB No. 6581: A former client/investigator alleged a non-lawyer employee held himself out as an attorney, generated clients for a fee, received fee splits, and was inadequately supervised; Farnham admitted limited failures of supervision (Rule 5.3).
- SDB No. 6705: Farnham represented a 2011 personal-injury client; after removal to federal court he ceased active participation, failed to formally withdraw or substitute counsel, and the case was later dismissed — he admitted violating Rule 1.16(d).
- SDB No. 6706: In a 2011 divorce matter, a proposed final order was misplaced, the case was dismissed for missed status conferences, Farnham later refiled in 2013 and pursued enforcement; he admitted lack of diligence (Rule 1.3) and refunded the $5,000 fee.
- Farnham had prior admonitions/reprimands (1992, 2007). The State Bar raised no objection to his petition and recommended a public reprimand; the special master also recommended a public reprimand.
- The Court accepted the petition for voluntary discipline and imposed a public reprimand, noting the Bar had erroneously suspended Farnham for part of the relevant period.
Issues
| Issue | State Bar's Argument | Farnham's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to accept petition for voluntary discipline | No objection; acceptance appropriate | Petitioning voluntarily and admitting violations | Petition accepted |
| Appropriate discipline for admitted violations (Rules 1.3, 1.16(d), 5.3) | Reprimand appropriate where negligence causes client injury or potential injury | Public reprimand appropriate given mitigation (no dishonest motive, cooperation, repayment) and prior erroneous suspension | Public reprimand imposed |
| Whether Farnham violated supervisory duties under Rule 5.3 | Alleged inadequate supervision and improper non-lawyer conduct warranted discipline | Admitted intermittent failures to maintain adequate direction/control but denied most allegations | Violation of Rule 5.3 admitted and disciplined |
| Whether Farnham failed to withdraw/substitute counsel under Rule 1.16(d) and to act diligently under Rule 1.3 | Failure to formally withdraw/substitute and failures on case management caused client harm | Acknowledged failures, mitigated by reimbursement and remedial actions | Violations of Rules 1.16(d) and 1.3 admitted and disciplined |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Brown, 296 Ga. 439 (reprimand cited as consistent with similar petitions for voluntary discipline)
- In the Matter of Edmondson, 292 Ga. 893 (reprimand precedent for similar rule violations)
- In the Matter of Ellis, 296 Ga. 83 (discipline consistent with negligent violations causing client harm)
- In the Matter of Adams, 287 Ga. 815 (public reprimand for multiple violations including Rules 1.3, 1.16, 5.3)