In re Lang
295 Ga. 220
Ga.2014Background
- Eric C. Lang (admitted 1990) represented a client sued on a note; summary judgment granted in 2012 on all issues except damages.
- A final damages hearing on May 1, 2013 resulted in judgment against Lang’s client; Lang did not notify the client of the hearing or the judgment.
- The Court suspended Lang on May 6, 2013 in a prior matter; Lang told the client of his suspension but still did not disclose the May 1 judgment; the client learned of the judgment in July 2013 via a garnishment notice.
- Lang admitted violating Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (communication) and sought voluntary discipline: a 24‑month suspension retroactive to May 6, 2013, with mental‑health–related reinstatement conditions and reporting obligations.
- The State Bar recommended a one‑year extension of Lang’s existing suspension (i.e., an additional year) with similar conditions; Lang submitted mitigation evidence of bipolar disorder, completion of an impaired‑professionals program, remediation efforts for the client, remorse, and cooperation.
- The Court declined to make the suspension retroactive (nunc pro tunc) but accepted voluntary discipline in part, imposing a 12‑month suspension beginning May 6, 2014 with the requested mental‑health and reporting conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Lang's Argument | State Bar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate sanction for Rule 1.3 and 1.4 violations | 24‑month suspension concurrent with existing suspension; conditions on reinstatement tied to mental‑health clearance and quarterly reports | One additional year suspension (to extend current suspension one year) with mental‑health conditions | Court imposed a 12‑month suspension beginning May 6, 2014 with mental‑health and reporting conditions |
| Whether suspension may be made nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2013 | Requested retroactive suspension to run concurrent with May 6, 2013 start date | Opposed nunc pro tunc because Lang did not voluntarily cease practice or meet transfer obligations by that date | Court declined nunc pro tunc relief; suspension begins May 6, 2014 because Lang did not voluntarily stop practicing and did not fulfill file/notice obligations by May 6, 2013 |
| Reinstatement conditions and monitoring | Requested psychologist/psychiatrist certification of competence, three years of quarterly reports to Committee on Lawyer Impairment, and waiver of confidentiality | Agreed to conditioning reinstatement on mental‑health proof and monitoring | Court required proof to State Bar OC before reinstatement; Bar to submit notice of compliance for Court to act; conditions adopted |
| Mitigation weight for mental illness and remediation efforts | Offered mental‑health treatment history, completion of impaired‑professionals program, remediation to client, and remorse to reduce sanction | Recognized mitigation; recommended one additional year to protect public and allow treatment | Court considered mitigation but still imposed one additional year suspension with conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Lang, 292 Ga. 894 (741 S.E.2d 152) (2013) (prior suspension imposed in earlier disciplinary matter)
- In the Matter of Lang, 294 Ga. 482 (754 S.E.2d 365) (2014) (rejection of earlier petition for consecutive discipline)
- In re Onipede, 288 Ga. 156 (702 S.E.2d 136) (2010) (nunc pro tunc suspensions require attorney to have voluntarily ceased practice and complied with transfer obligations)
- In the Matter of Mathis, 288 Ga. 548 (705 S.E.2d 158) (2011) (nunc pro tunc not appropriate when lawyer stopped practicing due to court‑ordered suspension)