294 Ga. 289
Ga.2013Background
- This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Review Panel’s Report and Recommendation adopting the special master’s 60‑page report recommending a one‑year suspension with reinstatement conditions for Wright’s violations of Rules 1.4, 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(I)(b) and (c), and 1.15(II)(b).
- Wright filed exceptions; the Court agrees with the Review Panel and adopts the one‑year suspension with conditions.
- Facts concern Wright’s representation of a married couple and their daughter in a May 2007 auto collision and later representation of the same couple and their corporation in a landlord/tenant dispute beginning Fall 2007.
- Wright settled the personal injury claims in late 2008, signing the clients’ names on releases and settlement checks and depositing them into her escrow account without informing the clients or sending detailed settlement statements.
- In the landlord/tenant matter, a Memorandum of Engagement allowed the possibility of an attorney lien but no lien documents were signed and no periodic statements were sent; Wright sought to apply or retain the settlement funds in a disputed manner, including letters suggesting authority that the daughter testified Wright did not provide or authorize.
- The special master found that Wright violated Rules 1.4, 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(I)(b) and (c), and 1.15(II)(b); he held that the maximum sanctions for 1.15(I) and 1.15(II)(b) include disbarment, while other violations support public reprimand.
- Mitigation showed no prior discipline and good character; aggravation showed lack of remorse and false statements during proceedings; the court ultimately ordered a one‑year suspension with reinstatement conditions including payment of funds to the daughter, ethics school, and an evaluation by the Law Practice Management Program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5(c)(2). | State Bar contends Wright failed to provide file copies and to send timely settlement statements. | Wright contends she acted within her understanding of the engagement and retained funds as permitted. | Yes, Wright violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5(c)(2). |
| Whether Wright violated Rules 1.15(I)(b) and (c) and 1.15(II)(b) by handling settlement funds. | State Bar established by clear and convincing evidence that funds were retained/moved improperly. | Wright argues she believed she had authorization to retain funds but disputes lack of wife/daughter consent. | Yes, Wright violated Rules 1.15(I)(b), 1.15(I)(c), and 1.15(II)(b). |
| What is the appropriate sanction given the violations? | Adopt the master’s discipline recommending a one‑year suspension with conditions. | Wright seeks review with more lenient terms. | One‑year suspension with conditions and specified restitution, ethics education, and practice management evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Ballew, 287 Ga. 371 (695 SE2d 573) (Ga. 2010) (special master credibility and best-position rule in disciplinary matters)
- Fitch, 289 Ga. 253 (710 SE2d 563) (Ga. 2011) (approval of suspension with conditions in discipline cases)
- Davis, 290 Ga. 857 (725 SE2d 216) (Ga. 2012) (false statements during disciplinary proceedings have serious consequences)
- O’Brien-Carriman, 288 Ga. 239 (702 SE2d 635) (Ga. 2010) (false statements to Bar during disciplinary process highly sanctionable)