290 Ga. 303
Ga.2011Background
- Respondents Sinowski and Freedman, Georgia attorneys, were charged with Standards 12, 13 and 26 violations under Bar Rule 4-102(d) for using 'runners' to solicit clients from 1995 to 1999.
- They paid 46 (State Bar says 54) runners and non-lawyers over $276,025 across about 1,376 cases, recording these payments in a Runner Book.
- They began to change practices after Falanga v. State Bar of Ga., but Falanga was reversed and certiorari denied; investigators later seized the Runner Book in 1999.
- Evidence showed they shared fees with non-lawyers who solicited cases; they acknowledged running and continuing activities until the 1999 federal action.
- The Special Master recommended a one-year suspension; the Review Panel recommended disbarment; the court reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors.
- The court ultimately disbarred the Respondents, holding the offenses were egregious, ongoing, and motivated by greed; no remorse found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there direct client-lawyer contact under Standard 12? | Sinowski/Freedman contend Standard 12 requires direct contact; no direct contact found. | Sinowski/Freedman argue a lack of direct personal contact defeats Standard 12. | No direct client-lawyer contact established; Standard 12 not violated. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Standards 13 and 26 violations? | Disbarment appropriate for egregious, organized scheme using runners. | Less severe discipline, e.g., suspension, could be warranted given mitigating factors. | Disbarment is the appropriate sanction. |
| Are mitigating factors sufficient to reduce discipline from disbarment? | Aggravation present; no remorse; organized scheme; grave misconduct justifies disbarment. | Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, minimal client harm) argue for lesser discipline. | Mitigating factors do not override the gravity; disbarment remains. |
| May information about similar cases be used to vary sanction? | Comparative cases support harsher penalties. | Other cases are not admissible evidence to justify the sanction here. | Such cases are not admissible evidence for sanction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Robbins, 276 Ga. 124 (Ga. 2003) (disbarment for Standard 13 violations)
- In the Matter of Maniscalco, 275 Ga. 238 (Ga. 2002) (twelve-month suspension; Standard 13)
- In the Matter of Barnes, 275 Ga. 812 (Ga. 2002) (three-year suspension with conditions; Standards 13 and 26)
- In the Matter of Arp, 273 Ga. 782 (Ga. 2001) (surrender of license; Standard 13)
- In the Matter of Bruton, 254 Ga. 466 (Ga. 1985) (one-year suspension; Standards 4, 13 and 26)
- Falanga v. State Bar of Ga., 150 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1998) (solicitation issues; discussed in context of Standards)