In the Matter of Melody Yvonne Cherry, 304 Ga. 836

Background

Melody Yvonne Cherry petitioned for voluntary discipline under Bar Rule 4-227(b) admitting violations of Ga. Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.15(I)(b), 4.1, and 8.4(a)(4) in two separate SDB dockets (7135 and 7136).
SDB No. 7135: Cherry settled a 2015 PI case in 2016 and disbursed remaining net proceeds to her client after a hospital lien was later released, despite earlier having given a written assurance to a treating doctor that funds would be protected and forwarded to the doctor; the doctor billed $2,444 and filed a grievance.
Cherry admits she disregarded the doctor’s interest in settlement funds in reliance on the client’s direction, violating Rule 1.15(I)(b).
SDB No. 7136: Cherry sent an April 19, 2017 letter to an insurer claiming representation of a potential client and forwarded a notarized signature purportedly of that woman; the woman had not signed or retained Cherry, and the employee notarized the signature at Cherry’s direction.
Cherry admits responsibility for the false notarized signature and concedes violations of Rules 4.1 and 8.4(a)(4); she asserts mitigation (no prior discipline, mistaken belief client would retain her, prompt withdrawal once informed).
The Bar and Cherry jointly proposed a public reprimand, but the Supreme Court rejected the petition because the record lacks information whether the third‑party doctor was made whole, and the multiple offenses counsel against accepting the proposed resolution without that information.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether voluntary discipline (public reprimand) is appropriate overall	Cherry: admitted misconduct, asserted mitigation, and negotiated a public reprimand with the Bar	Bar: agreed a reprimand fits given mitigation but noted aggravation (experience, multiple offenses)	Court rejected petition for voluntary discipline because record lacks information whether third‑party doctor was paid and multiple offenses present
Whether Cherry violated Rule 1.15(I)(b) by disregarding third‑party interest in settlement funds	Cherry: paid client per client’s direction after believing lien released; contends no ultimate harm shown	Bar: Cherry violated Rule 1.15(I)(b) by disregarding doctor’s written assurance and interest	Court: Cherry admitted violation, and lack of proof doctor was made whole prevented acceptance of negotiated discipline
Whether Cherry violated Rules 4.1 and 8.4(a)(4) by sending a letter with a falsified notarized signature	Cherry: believed potential client would retain her and expedited representation; withdrew when notified otherwise	Bar: Cherry knowingly caused a false notarization and that conduct reflects dishonesty	Court: Cherry admitted violations; such dishonest conduct supports disciplinary sanction though resolution was not accepted without full facts
Appropriate sanction for admitted misconduct	Cherry & Bar: public reprimand appropriate given mitigation and comparable precedent	Court: suspension/disbarment not required on facts, but cannot accept reprimand without knowing whether third‑party was harmed; petition denied	Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; case remanded for further factual development or formal proceedings

Key Cases Cited

In the Matter of Davis, 291 Ga. 169 (2012) (Review Panel reprimand for notarizing client signature twice; supports reprimand for 8.4(a)(4) violations)
In the Matter of Swain, 290 Ga. 678 (2012) (public reprimand where client signatures notarized outside client presence)
In the Matter of Turner, 289 Ga. 563 (2011) (reprimand for fee/accounting and 8.4(a)(4) issues; no prior discipline)
In the Matter of Mathis, 286 Ga. 728 (2010) (reprimand where attorney filed documents with client verification signed without client review)
In the Matter of Davis, 303 Ga. 564 (2018) (declined Review Panel reprimand where attorney knowingly notarized deed signature; shows limits to accepting negotiated reprimands)
In the Matter of Bozeman, 286 Ga. 510 (2010) (disbarment where lawyer failed to pay third‑party medical providers, commingled funds, and misled investigators)
In the Matter of Dorer, 304 Ga. 442 (2018) (court refused recommended reprimand absent full factual record for alleged 8.4(a)(4) violation)
In the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353 (1995) (court looks to ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions)
In the Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488 (1981) (public reprimand as deterrent and to maintain professional ethics)