305 Ga. 419
Ga.2019Background:
- Alvis Melvin Moore was suspended for one year in 2016 for violating Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (Bar Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(a)(4)).
- This Court conditioned reinstatement on: (1) a detailed written evaluation by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist certifying Moore is mentally competent to practice law; and (2) evaluation by the State Bar’s Law Practice Management (LPM) Program and implementation of its recommendations within six months of reinstatement.
- Moore filed a petition for reinstatement with the State Disciplinary Review Board on August 30, 2018; the State Bar issued a Notice of Compliance on September 11, 2018 asserting Moore met the Court’s conditions.
- The Review Board reviewed Moore’s submissions and concluded the psychological evaluation did not certify mental competence to practice law, lacked demonstrated familiarity with legal practice demands, and failed to address the Court’s specific certification request.
- The Review Board found the LPM condition was met based on information provided by the State Bar, but recommended denial of reinstatement due to defect in the psychological evaluation.
- The Georgia Supreme Court accepted the Review Board’s recommendation and rejected Moore’s petition for reinstatement, noting Moore must supply a proper competency certification in any amended petition and clarify an apparent statement that he practiced while suspended.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore satisfied the Court’s condition requiring a psychological/psychiatric evaluation certifying mental competence to practice law | Moore submitted a psychological evaluation and the State Bar issued a Notice of Compliance asserting conditions were met | Review Board and State Bar argued the evaluation did not certify competence, showed lack of evaluator familiarity with law’s demands, and failed to comply with the Court’s specified requirement | Denied — Moore failed to meet the psychological-evaluation condition; petition rejected |
| Whether Moore met the LPM Program condition | Moore alleged compliance with LPM requirements in his petition | Review Board noted Moore’s petition lacked sufficient LPM detail but relied on State Bar’s supplemental information | Held — LPM condition deemed satisfied based on information provided by the State Bar |
| Burden of proof in readmission proceedings | Moore must show compliance with reinstatement conditions | State maintains petitioner bears the burden and must provide sufficient evidence | Held — Burden on petitioner; Moore failed to carry it regarding mental-competency certification |
| Whether any additional clarification required about alleged practice during suspension | Moore’s psychological evaluation appeared to state he last practiced during a suspension period | State and Review Board questioned potential unauthorized practice | Held — Court instructed Moore to clarify in an amended petition whether he practiced while suspended |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Moore, 300 Ga. 407 (2016) (suspension order setting specific reinstatement conditions)
- In the Matter of Johnson, 244 Ga. 109 (1979) (placing burden of proof for readmission on petitioner)