291 Ga. 841
Ga.2012Background
- Respondent Paul Troy Wright violated Rules 3.3 and 8.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, per the special master.
- Wright represented HELP and Huffman in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy;他 statements to the bankruptcy court and appellate court were at issue.
- Bankruptcy court was seeking evidence of a board resolution; Wright falsely claimed he had seen a valid HELP board resolution.
- Evidence showed the purported resolution was invalid due to bylaws and lack of proper board action; bankruptcy petition was dismissed.
- Court of Appeals found Wright and Wilkinson made false statements in briefs and contempt orders were entered; State Bar initiated disciplinary action.
- Special master recommended Wright be suspended for six months and publicly reprimanded; Review Panel adopted findings with Wright’s failure to file exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wright violate Rules 3.3 and 8.4? | Wright knowingly made false statements to conceal lack of board authority. | Wright believed statements were true at the time; some statements relied on information then available. | Yes; findings support violations of Rules 3.3 and 8.4. |
| Were Wright's statements to the Court of Appeals false? | Statements asserting board authorization were false based on record evidence. | Statements were truthful at the time and not knowingly false. | Yes; statements to the Court of Appeals were false and misleading. |
| Was Wright properly subject to discipline given the procedural posture and exceptions? | Review Panel adopted the master’s findings; Wright waived exceptions by not timely filing. | Errors in notice and handling of exceptions; undercutting the process; merits still fail to exonerate. | Disciplinary action upheld; six-month suspension and public reprimand. |
| Is the sanction appropriate in light of Wilkinson’s prior discipline and similar issues? | Consistent with precedent; similar misconduct warranted discipline. | Different facts; defendant argued for lesser sanction or admissible defenses. | Six-month suspension plus public reprimand; aligns with precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huffman v. Armenia, 284 Ga. App. 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (Court of Appeals contempt and false-assertion findings referenced)
- In the Matter of Wilkinson, 284 Ga. 548 (Ga. 2008) (public reprimand and suspension precedent for similar misconduct)