In re Lank
300 Ga. 479
Ga.2017Background
- Shanina N. Lank was served by publication after personal service attempts failed; she did not timely file Notices of Rejection and thus waived an evidentiary hearing.
- Three matters: two client civil cases where Lank failed to appear or communicate, resulting in default/consent judgments; one matter where her attorney trust account had a $59.88 item paid against insufficient funds producing a negative balance.
- Lank did not timely respond to Notices of Investigation; responses were eventually filed but untimely. She admitted many of the underlying facts and violations in Petitions for Voluntary Discipline.
- Investigative Panel found probable cause for violations of GA Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(II), 1.16(d), and 9.3), and found a pattern of misconduct across the three matters.
- Lank cited serious medical and mental-health issues and lack of office presence as mitigation; she offered restitution payments and requested a suspension (rather than disbarment) with reinstatement conditioned on a board-certified mental-health evaluation.
- The State Bar recommended a one-year suspension with conditions (opposing nunc pro tunc), and the Court imposed a suspension of at least one year, effective on opinion date, with specified reinstatement conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disbarment is required for Lank’s misconduct | State Bar urged significant discipline but ultimately recommended one-year suspension given mitigation | Lank requested suspension (formal admonition to one-year) and sought nunc pro tunc application of suspension | Court declined disbarment; imposed at least one-year suspension, denied nunc pro tunc relief |
| Whether Lank violated duties to clients (diligence, communication, termination duties) | Bar: failures to appear, to inform clients, and to protect client interests violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 | Lank admitted failures, attributed them to serious medical issues and being out of the office | Court found violations of 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 and considered mitigation but still imposed one-year suspension |
| Whether trust-account misconduct occurred and warrants severe sanction | Bar alleged trust-account rule violations based on NSF item and negative balance | Lank said NSF charge was recurring firm website fee paid from personal loan funds, not client funds; she did not admit Rule 1.15(I) violation | Court found violation(s) of Rule 1.15(II) and imposed sanction consistent with trust-account breach (part of suspension analysis) |
| Whether Lank obstructed disciplinary process by untimely responses | Bar argued late or no responses violated Rule 9.3 and showed obstruction | Lank eventually filed sworn responses and petitions but conceded untimeliness, citing medical/office absence | Court held she violated Rule 9.3 for untimely responses and considered that aggravating; included in sanction decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Onipede, 288 Ga. 156 (2010) (standards for nunc pro tunc suspension relief)
- In the Matter of Ricks, 289 Ga. 136 (2011) (discipline precedent informing suspension for comparable misconduct)
- In the Matter of Frazier, 273 Ga. 878 (2001) (discipline precedent on client-abandonment and sanctioning)
- In the Matter of Fair, 292 Ga. 308 (2013) (procedure for reinstatement and requirements before practice may resume)