295 Ga. 179
Ga.2014Background
- Respondent Edward R. Mashek III (State Bar No. 475384) filed a petition for voluntary discipline after a Formal Complaint alleging violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 5.3(a), 5.3(b), and 7.3(d).
- Mashek has practiced solo in personal-injury law since 2000 with no prior disciplinary history; his office used paralegals and a “sign up person” to contact prospective clients, often based on tips from medical providers.
- Southern Healthcare Associates (SHA) referred patients to Mashek and other attorneys; Mashek denies paying SHA or knowing SHA engaged in improper solicitation.
- A man injured in a car accident was contacted by Mashek’s office shortly after the accident, met with a firm representative that day, and signed engagement paperwork; dispute existed whether Mashek’s office or SHA initiated the referral.
- The special master accepted Mashek’s admission of violations based on his office practices that allowed employee solicitation from medical-provider tips, found mitigation (no prior history, cooperation, remorse), and recommended a Review Panel reprimand.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted the petition and imposed a Review Panel reprimand for the admitted violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mashek violated Rules 5.3(a) and 5.3(b) (supervisory duty for nonlawyer conduct) | Mashek’s office system allowed nonlawyers to solicit clients based on medical-provider tips; this failed proper supervision | Mashek contended he did not know his employees or SHA improperly solicited and did not pay for referrals | Court accepted Mashek’s admission and found violations of 5.3(a) and 5.3(b) |
| Whether Mashek violated Rule 7.3(d) (improper in-person/telephone solicitation) | A firm representative solicited the injured man shortly after the accident, violating solicitation rules | Mashek argued uncertainty whether SHA or his office initiated referral and denied knowledge of improper solicitation | Court accepted the admission that Rule 7.3(d) was violated |
| Appropriate sanction for the admitted misconduct | State Bar recommended a Review Panel reprimand as sufficient deterrence and public notice | Mashek requested voluntary discipline and a Review Panel reprimand, citing mitigation | Court agreed a Review Panel reprimand was appropriate and accepted voluntary discipline |
| Whether aggravating factors warranted harsher discipline | Bar pointed to potential exposure for serious sanction but did not present aggravation | Mashek emphasized lack of prior discipline, cooperation, remorse | No aggravating factors found; mitigation weighed in favor of reprimand |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Carter, 293 Ga. 896 (2013) (Review Panel reprimand for inexperienced lawyer who denied knowledge that employee was improperly soliciting clients)
- In the Matter of Falanga, 272 Ga. 615 (2000) (public reprimand imposed for solicitation-related misconduct)
- In the Matters of Sinowski and Freedman, 290 Ga. 303 (2012) (disbarment where lawyers ran an organized, lucrative scheme using paid runners and aggravating factors)
- In the Matter of Robbins, 276 Ga. 124 (2003) (disbarment where lawyer shared fees with nonlawyer who procured clients; aggravating history present)