In the Matter of Michael Anthony Eddings, 314 Ga. 409

Background

While defending a murder defendant, Attorney Michael A. Eddings interviewed and tape-recorded a material witness who was represented by counsel (Stacey Jackson) and had been charged with making a false statement related to the victim’s death.
Eddings provided the recording to the prosecutor; the witness was later indicted as a co-defendant and tried (acquitted). At that witness’s trial, Eddings testified under oath that he knew Jackson represented the witness, had unsuccessfully tried to obtain Jackson’s consent, and nevertheless interviewed the witness.
The next day Eddings emailed the presiding judge, the chief judge, the ADA, and Jackson, claiming he had forgotten that Jackson had given consent by phone on June 30, 2017 (on speakerphone with family present) and later produced sworn affidavits from his wife and two family members supporting that account.
The State Disciplinary Board charged Eddings with violating Rules 3.3, 4.1, 4.2(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(a)(4). The special master found Jackson’s testimony credible, rejected Eddings’s post-trial recantation and supporting affidavits as false, and concluded Eddings knowingly communicated with a represented person and repeatedly made false statements.
The Review Board adopted the special master’s findings; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed that the record supports clear-and-convincing proof of the violations, found numerous aggravating factors (including prior contempt and two prior public reprimands), and ordered Eddings disbarred.

Issues

Issue	Bar's Argument	Eddings' Argument	Held
Did Eddings violate Rule 4.2 by communicating with a represented witness?	Eddings knowingly interviewed a witness represented by Jackson without consent, despite prior contempt and court warning.	Eddings obtained Jackson’s consent June 30, 2017 (speakerphone with witnesses) and believed Jackson no longer represented the witness.	Court: Found clear-and-convincing evidence he contacted a represented person without consent; Rule 4.2 violated.
Did Eddings make false statements to a tribunal or third persons (Rules 3.3, 4.1)?	He disavowed sworn trial testimony the next day and sent communications repeating false claims of consent.	He "forgot" at trial and corrected the record the next day; his post-trial email and affidavits were truthful.	Court: Found his post-trial disavowals and email were not credible and constituted false statements; Rules 3.3 and 4.1 violated.
Did Eddings submit false evidence and engage in dishonesty in the disciplinary process (Rules 8.1, 8.4)?	He submitted false affidavits and persuaded others to repeat false statements under oath, obstructing the disciplinary process.	His witnesses were credible and had no motive to lie; special master erred in credibility findings.	Court: Deferential to special master; found the affidavits and testimony false and ruled Rule 8.1 and 8.4 violations.
Is disbarment the appropriate sanction?	Disbarment is presumptive given intentional deceit, multiple offenses, bad-faith obstruction, submission of false evidence, and prior disciplinary history (third infraction).	Challenges credibility and sufficiency of objective evidence; claims procedural errors excluded favorable evidence.	Court: Affirmed disbarment as the appropriate sanction given violations, aggravators, and Bar Rule 4-103.

Key Cases Cited

In the Matter of Eddings, 298 Ga. 434 (782 SE2d 445) (2016) (prior public reprimand supporting disciplinary history)
In the Matter of Eddings, 300 Ga. 419 (795 SE2d 183) (2016) (prior public reprimand addressing trust-account misconduct)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (470 SE2d 232) (1996) (court looks to ABA Standards when determining sanction)
In the Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 206 (857 SE2d 212) (2021) (deference to special master’s credibility findings)
In the Matter of Braziel, 306 Ga. 385 (830 SE2d 730) (2019) (same deference to factfinder credibility)
In the Matter of Nicholson, 299 Ga. 737 (791 SE2d 776) (2016) (false-statement disciplinary precedent)
In the Matter of Minsk, 296 Ga. 152 (765 SE2d 361) (2014) (false-statement disciplinary precedent)
In the Matter of Jefferson, 307 Ga. 50 (834 SE2d 73) (2019) (disbarment for deceptive conduct in filings and proceedings)
In the Matter of Koehler, 297 Ga. 794 (778 SE2d 218) (2015) (disbarment where deceit impacted proceedings)
In the Matter of Mays, 269 Ga. 100 (495 SE2d 30) (1998) (disbarment for deliberate lying to clients and disciplinary bodies)