In the Matter of Hakeem Bertrand Brock, 306 Ga. 388

Hakeem B. Brock (admitted 2007) filed a petition for voluntary discipline in May 2019 seeking a Review Board reprimand; the State Bar supported the petition after investigation and negotiation.
Brock employed a paralegal who forged his signature and withdrew approximately $21,000 from his client trust account, writing checks to friends/family and purported clients; scheme revealed when four checks bounced.
Brock lacked ledgers/records showing client-specific trust balances and therefore did not detect the paralegal’s misconduct; he fired her, reimbursed missing client/third‑party funds from personal funds, implemented oversight policies, and reported the theft to law enforcement.
The State Bar investigation also uncovered three instances where Brock personally misused the trust account: one student loan payment (from earned but retained fees) and two mortgage payments on behalf of a former client (funds that should have been promptly delivered to the client).
Brock admitted violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(I)(a),(c); 1.15(II)(a),(b); and 5.3(a),(b) and acknowledged responsibility for the paralegal’s actions due to inadequate supervision under Rule 5.3(c)(2).
The Court accepted the negotiated disposition and imposed a Review Board reprimand, finding mitigating factors (no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, restitution, cooperation, remorse) outweighed aggravators (substantial experience, multiple offenses).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brock’s failure to supervise nonlawyer staff that stole client funds warrants discipline	Brock conceded lack of supervision but argued theft was committed by paralegal without his knowledge and he remedied harm	State Bar argued Brock is responsible under Rule 5.3 for nonlawyer misconduct due to inadequate supervision	Court held Brock liable under Rule 5.3 and imposed a Review Board reprimand
Whether Brock’s personal withdrawals/payments from trust account violated trust accounting rules	Brock admitted withdrawals were from earned fees or client funds and that he failed to promptly deliver client funds; he argued mitigation by restitution and corrective measures	State Bar argued the withdrawals violated Rule 1.15 provisions governing safekeeping and prompt delivery of client funds	Court held Brock violated Rules 1.15(I) and 1.15(II); misconduct warranted reprimand given mitigating factors

In the Matter of Farnham, 300 Ga. 645 (2017) (public reprimand for failure to maintain direction and control over nonlawyer staff)
In the Matter of Eddings, 300 Ga. 419 (2016) (public reprimand where attorney was victim of elaborate con by nonlawyer financial manager)
In the Matter of Ralston, 300 Ga. 416 (2016) (Review Panel reprimand for misuse of earned but undisbursed trust funds)
In the Matter of Francis, 297 Ga. 282 (2015) (Review Panel reprimand for misuse of trust account where no clients were harmed)
In the Matter of Eddleman, 298 Ga. 469 (2016) (public reprimand for inadequate supervision of nonlawyer staff and conflicts)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996) (Georgia courts look to ABA Standards for guidance in sanctions)