In re Richbourg, 293 Ga. 576

Respondent Robert B. Richbourg pled guilty in Tift County Superior Court to two felony counts of false imprisonment after an alcohol-related early-morning alleyway confrontation in which he pointed a gun at two men.
Sentenced under Georgia’s First Offender Act to 10 years probation, fees/fines, 200 hours community service, alcohol evaluation/treatment if recommended, and a weapons prohibition during probation.
Richbourg petitioned for voluntary discipline under Bar Rule 4-102(d), admitting a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness to practice) and requested a 12-month suspension.
He proffered multiple mitigating factors: 23 years of practice with no prior discipline, self-reporting and cooperation, community support (45 letters), remorse, absence of client harm, psychological evaluation (no alcohol addiction; depression and anxiety treated), and voluntary suspension of practice.
The State Bar, citing analogous cases, did not oppose a 12-month suspension.
The Court reviewed record similarities to prior mitigation cases but found discrepancies (aggregate suspensions and suspension tied to probation in prior cases) making a 12-month suspension inadequate and rejected the petition.

Issue	Richbourg's Argument	State Bar's Argument	Held
Appropriate discipline for admitted violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2) after felony convictions	12-month suspension justified by mitigating factors (long practice, no prior discipline, remorse, self-reporting, evaluation, community support)	Agreed a suspension (citing Ortman, Seshul) could be appropriate given mitigation; supported 12 months	Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; Court found 12 months inadequate given case differences with precedents
Applicability of Ortman/Seshul mitigation principle	Mitigation from those cases supports lesser-than-disbarment sanction	Mitigation supports suspension rather than disbarment	Court acknowledged similarity but distinguished facts and sanctions in prior cases and declined to accept proposed discipline
Relation of suspension length to criminal probation	Noted suspension shorter than criminal probation; urged shorter suspension	State Bar previously accepted suspension durations tied to facts	Court viewed disparity (suspension ending before probation) as significant in rejecting petition
Whether conduct arose from practice of law or harmed clients	Conduct unrelated to legal practice and caused no client harm — supports leniency	Agreed these are mitigating factors	Court considered but found other factors outweighed them for purposes of accepting voluntary discipline

In the Matter of Ortman, 289 Ga. 130 (mitigation can justify suspension rather than disbarment)
In the Matter of Seshul, 289 Ga. 910 (suspension was imposed tied to probationary period despite felony conduct)
In the Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488 (discipline must be governed by particular facts of each case)