in the Matter of Nolen Arthur Hamer, S17Y1988

Nolen Arthur Hamer, a Georgia lawyer since 1989, faced formal Bar charges after this Court rejected his petition for voluntary discipline seeking only a Review Panel reprimand.
The complaints covered three client matters (SDB Docket Nos. 6813, 6814, 6815) involving chronic neglect, poor communication, delegation to a non‑lawyer assistant, failure to prosecute or serve filings, inaccurate statements to court or client, improper handling of client funds, and refusal to refund fees.
Specific misconduct included failing to advance divorce cases, not drafting agreed orders or scheduling hearings, failing to notify clients of court settings, depositing client cash into an operating account, and withdrawing without proper notice.
The special master found violations of multiple Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 5.3, 8.4) and identified several offenses for which disbarment is the maximum sanction.
Aggravating factors included a pattern of multiple offenses, bad‑faith obstruction of disciplinary proceedings, and substantial experience in practice; Hamer did not respond to the special master’s report to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate sanction for professional misconduct	State Bar: Hamer’s pattern of neglect, deception, and mishandling of client funds warrants disbarment	Hamer sought only a Review Panel reprimand (earlier petition); no further defense to the special master’s report to this Court	Court adopted special master and ordered disbarment
Violations of duties owed to clients (diligence, communication, competence)	Bar: Multiple rule violations (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2) across matters showing neglect and poor communication	Hamer had previously admitted many facts but sought minimal discipline	Court found violations and considered them significant in sanction analysis
Misuse of client property / trust accounting (Rule 1.15)	Bar: Depositing client cash into operating account and refusing refunds breached Rule 1.15 and supports disbarment	Hamer did not rebut or mitigate these allegations before the Court	Court accepted finding of improper handling of client funds as aggravating, supporting disbarment
Delegation to non‑lawyer and supervisory failures (Rule 5.3)	Bar: Delegation of client communications to non‑lawyer assistant and supervisory lapses contributed to misconduct	Hamer did not effectively contest supervisory failings	Court found violations of Rule 5.3 and used them in sanction determination

In the Matter of Hamer, 300 Ga. 70 (2016) (prior decision rejecting Hamer’s petition for voluntary discipline)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996) (Georgia Court’s reliance on ABA Standards for guidance in imposing lawyer sanctions)