In the Matter of Patrick A. Powell, 310 Ga. 859

Powell, admitted 1998, was retained in May 2018 (third party paid $4,000 retainer and $1,000 additional toward a quoted $12,000 fee) to represent a client in federal criminal proceedings in the N.D. Ga.
Powell entered an appearance but then failed to perform work, failed to respond to client and third‑party inquiries, and failed to appear at pretrial/status conferences and a show‑cause hearing.
The federal court and prosecutor were unable to contact Powell; a grievance was filed in December 2018 and the State Bar issued a Notice of Investigation to which Powell did not respond.
The State Bar filed a Formal Complaint in June 2020; Powell did not answer and the Special Master entered default and found violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 3.2, 9.3).
The Special Master found the conduct intentional, causing significant client injury, identified numerous aggravating factors (including prior discipline and selfish motive) and no mitigation, and recommended disbarment.
The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted the recommendation and ordered Powell disbarred; Powell had been previously suspended for three months in 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Powell violated professional conduct rules by abandoning a client	Powell’s failure to communicate, appear, or perform constituted violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 3.2, and 9.3	Powell did not respond to the complaint or investigation (no defense presented)	Court found violations established by default
Whether Powell’s failure to respond to disciplinary process affects sanction	State Bar argued refusal to cooperate is aggravating and supports severe sanction	No response from Powell	Court treated nonresponse as aggravating and considered prior suspension
Appropriate sanction for abandonment and noncooperation	Disbarment is appropriate given intentional misconduct and significant client harm	No mitigating evidence offered	Court disbarred Powell, consistent with precedent for abandonment/nonresponse
Whether prior discipline and other factors affect sanction severity	Prior suspension, pattern, selfish motive, victim vulnerability, and experience justify harsher sanction	N/A	Court cited these aggravating factors and found no mitigation, supporting disbarment

In the Matter of Powell, 289 Ga. 215 (2011) (prior suspension for failures of diligence and communication)
In the Matter of Annis, 306 Ga. 187 (2019) (disbarment for client abandonment and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities)
In the Matter of Jennings, 305 Ga. 133 (2019) (disbarment where attorney abandoned client and failed to cooperate)
In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (2017) (disbarment for abandonment and noncooperation)
In the Matter of Lenoir, 282 Ga. 311 (2007) (disbarment precedent for similar misconduct)
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996) (use of ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions)