306 Ga. 620
Ga.2019Background
- Phillip N. Golub, admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1980, filed a petition for voluntary discipline admitting violations of multiple Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of a client retained in 2014.
- Client paid $7,500 in legal fees and $2,500 for other assistance; no written engagement agreement was signed.
- Golub filed two lawsuits in 2015 but delayed discovery, failed to advance the cases to trial, and did not timely respond to status inquiries from the client (primarily communicated through the client’s son).
- After an extended hospitalization in March 2017, Golub voluntarily dismissed the suits without prejudice in April 2017, did not promptly notify the client or her son, refiled actions in October 2017 without consent (after the client had died), and then performed no further work or service of process.
- Golub failed to provide billing records or refund unearned fees and admitted violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, and 8.4(a)(4).
- Golub cited serious illness and hospitalization as mitigation and sought a public reprimand; the State Bar supported a public reprimand but the Court rejected the petition for voluntary discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Golub's Argument | State Bar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Golub’s admitted facts support a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation) | Golub admitted he failed to correct the son’s misunderstanding about case status and discovery issues, characterizing it as an 8.4(a)(4) violation | Bar treated the conduct as negligent/dilatory misconduct and supported sanctions consistent with negligence-based ABA guidance | Court expressed uncertainty that the admitted facts establish an 8.4(a)(4) violation and flagged need for clearer factual showing; petition therefore problematic on this point |
| Whether a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction here | Golub requested a public reprimand, emphasizing mitigation (illness, remorse, no selfish motive, limited prior discipline) | Bar recommended a public reprimand, citing similar cases and ABA Standard 4.43 for negligent failures causing client injury or potential injury | Court did not accept petition because of unresolved issues (8.4(a)(4) uncertainty and unresolved restitution) and therefore did not impose the agreed public reprimand |
| Whether Golub fulfilled restitution obligations to the client’s son | Golub stated intent to "pay as much of the money" as he is able but did not commit to full repayment | Bar criticized incomplete resolution of restitution and cited need for clarity on making third parties whole | Court found Golub’s lack of clear commitment to full repayment problematic and a basis to reject the voluntary-discipline petition |
| Whether the petition for voluntary discipline should be accepted | Golub sought Court acceptance of his petition and imposition of a public reprimand | Bar recommended acceptance consistent with precedent | Court rejected the petition due to factual ambiguity on 8.4(a)(4) and insufficient restitution assurances |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Jordan, 305 Ga. 35 (imposed public reprimand for neglect, poor communication, and eventual nonperformance)
- In the Matter of Moncus, 296 Ga. 154 (public reprimand for failure to communicate and consult)
- In the Matter of Stewart, 301 Ga. 227 (public reprimand for similar communication and performance failures)
- In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (Court looks to ABA standards for sanction guidance)
- In the Matter of Dorer, 304 Ga. 442 (rejected voluntary discipline where facts unclear for admitted rule violation)
- In the Matter of Braziel, 303 Ga. 154 (rejected petition where uncertainty about underlying facts existed)
- In the Matter of West, 299 Ga. 731 (rejected voluntary discipline when admitted facts did not show violation admitted)
- In the Matter of Cherry, 304 Ga. 836 (rejected petition lacking clarity on third-party restitution)