In the Matter of Cheryl Joyce Braziel, 306 Ga. 385

Cheryl Braziel, a Georgia attorney admitted in 2007, settled a client’s liability claim and sought to preserve the client’s uninsured motorist (UM) recovery; UM coverage depended on satisfaction of certain federal liens (e.g., Medicaid).
Braziel believed a Medicaid lien should exist for Grady Hospital charges but could not document one; she asked an assistant to retrieve a prior lien-letter from another file for contact purposes.
The assistant misunderstood and created a new letter, purporting to be from Grady’s counsel about a lien for the current client; Braziel discovered the letter, admonished the assistant, and asked an administrative services provider (Morris) to check the lien.
Morris later emailed the forged letter to the UM carrier, which forwarded it to Grady’s lawyer; upon contact, Braziel promptly admitted the error, took responsibility, and severed ties with Morris.
The special master found Braziel did not personally forge or send the letter, but violated Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 (a), (b), and (c)(2) for inadequate supervision and for failures related to nonlawyer conduct; mitigation included remorse, restitution efforts, health issues, and no prior discipline.
The Court accepted the petition for voluntary discipline and imposed a public reprimand, agreeing with the special master’s credibility findings and sanction analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to accept renewed petition for voluntary discipline and appropriate sanction	Braziel sought a Review Panel or public reprimand for admitted violations; State Bar supported petition	N/A—no opposition to voluntary discipline after remand	Court accepted petition and imposed a public reprimand
Whether Braziel violated Rules 5.3(a), (b), (c)(2) and/or Rules 4.1 or 8.4(a)(2)	Violations of Rule 5.3 based on inadequate supervision and nonlawyer misconduct; no evidence of intentional misrepresentation	Braziel contended she did not create or send the forged letter and lacked intent to deceive	Court found violations of Rules 5.3(a),(b),(c)(2); insufficient evidence for violations of Rules 4.1 or 8.4(a)(2)
Whether special master’s credibility and sanction recommendations should control	Special master recommended public reprimand based on findings and ABA standards; mitigation outweighed limited aggravation	Braziel relied on special master’s findings of remorse, absence of selfish motive, health issues, and corrective steps	Court deferred to special master’s credibility determinations and imposed public reprimand consistent with precedent

In the Matter of Braziel, 303 Ga. 154 (recused earlier petition; remand for formal complaint)
In the Matter of Ballew, 287 Ga. 371 (special master best positioned to assess credibility)
In the Matter of Wright, 294 Ga. 289 (deference to special master credibility findings)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (use ABA Standards for sanction guidance)
In the Matter of Heitmann, 297 Ga. 280 (public reprimand for Rule 5.3 violation involving supervised nonlawyer misconduct)
In the Matter of Ellis, 296 Ga. 83 (reprimand for staff misconduct of which attorney should have known)
In the Matter of Mashek, 295 Ga. 179 (reprimand for violations involving staff solicitation and supervision failures)
In the Matter of Grant, 287 Ga. 131 (reprimand for misconduct tied to improper supervision and client harm)