In the Matter of D. Duston Tapley, Jr, 308 Ga. 577

In Feb 2018 Tapley told a Richmond County court he was elderly and no longer "physically and mentally able" to try cases; he admitted hearing, dizziness, stamina, and cognitive lapses but continued representing some felony clients.
Chief judges in two circuits met with Tapley; orders were entered that he withdraw from ongoing criminal cases and refrain from taking new cases in those circuits.
Tapley obtained a March 2018 psychological evaluation by Dr. Donald Meck finding age‑appropriate cognitive decline and auditory deficits but generally average cognitive ability; Meck did not assess capacity specifically to practice law.
The State Bar filed a Formal Complaint alleging Tapley violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 and lacked mental competence under Bar Rule 4‑104; it moved for partial summary judgment on incompetence and those rule violations.
The special master granted summary judgment for the State Bar, concluding Tapley lacked capacity to practice and had violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3, relying on Tapley’s in‑court admissions and judges’ concerns.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the special master on summary judgment: Dr. Meck’s evaluation created a genuine issue of material fact as to competence and the related Rule 1.1/1.3 findings; the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	State Bar's Argument	Tapley's Argument	Held
Competence under Bar Rule 4‑104	Tapley’s in‑court admissions and judges’ observations show cognitive impairment requiring removal	Dr. Meck’s evaluation shows average cognitive ability and creates a factual dispute	Summary judgment reversed; Meck’s evaluation is relevant and creates a genuine issue; remand for hearing
Violations of Rules 1.1 (competence) & 1.3 (diligence)	Tapley’s admissions and conduct prove failure of competent, diligent representation	Tapley’s later sworn statements and Meck’s report contest those allegations	Findings interrelated with competence; cannot be resolved on summary judgment; remand for hearing
Admissibility/relevance of Dr. Meck’s evaluation	Meck didn’t opine on ability to practice law; per Moore such an evaluation is insufficient	Meck’s general cognitive assessment is relevant and probative enough to raise a factual dispute	Moore is limited; relevance is binary and Meck’s evaluation defeats summary judgment
Waiver of procedural objections (failure to seek Review Board review)	Tapley waived exceptions by not seeking Review Board review	Bar Rule allows filing exceptions with the Supreme Court after report; exceptions are permitted	Bar’s waiver argument rejected; Court considered Tapley’s response

Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (de novo review; view evidence for nonmovant)
Montgomery v. Barrow, 286 Ga. 896 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (opponent need only raise a genuine issue of material fact)
Jones v. State, 301 Ga. 544 (distinguishing relevance and probative value)
Nguyen v. Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C., 298 Ga. 75 (credibility conflicts for summary judgment)
In the Matter of Moore, 305 Ga. 419 (evaluation requirement limited to specific reinstatement condition)