313 Ga. 686
Ga.2022Background
- In 2014 an elderly, infirm client hired Phillip N. Golub and paid $7,500 in three installments to pursue claims for a fraudulent transfer of real property.
- Golub filed two lawsuits in 2015 but then repeatedly delayed discovery, did not serve defendants in renewal actions, failed to respond to discovery, and took no meaningful steps to advance the cases toward trial.
- The client’s son repeatedly sought status updates; Golub often failed to respond and did not inform the family when he voluntarily dismissed the actions in April 2017; he later refiled without notifying or serving defendants. The client died in September 2017 and Golub did not substitute the estate.
- Golub did not provide billing records, did not refund unearned fees, and admitted he did not complete work on the matters; he cited health issues and claimed he performed significant work but offered no supporting proof.
- The State Bar filed a formal complaint in October 2019; the Special Master granted the Bar summary judgment on violations of multiple Rules, recommended a one-year suspension conditioned on full refund of the $7,500 (and payment of probate costs), and the Supreme Court of Georgia adopted that recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of Rule 1.2(a) (consultation/scope) | State Bar: Golub failed to consult and abide by client decisions (dismissed and refiled suits without client/family notice). | Golub: Took actions he believed were necessary; health issues impeded communication. | Court: Violated Rule 1.2(a); summary judgment for State Bar. |
| Violation of Rule 1.3 and 3.2 (diligence/expedition) | State Bar: Golub knowingly failed to prosecute/advance cases, causing prejudice. | Golub: Claimed substantial work and mitigating health problems. | Court: Violated Rules 1.3 and 3.2; failed to diligently represent client. |
| Violation of Rule 1.4(a) (communication) | State Bar: Golub failed to keep client/family informed and ignored status requests. | Golub: Health and workload explanations; denies intent to mislead. | Court: Violated Rule 1.4(a); communication failures established. |
| Violation of Rule 1.16(d) (refund of unearned fees) | State Bar: Golub failed to refund unearned portion of retainer and produced no billing. | Golub: Asserts he did work but provided no evidence or refund. | Court: Violated Rule 1.16(d); conditioned reinstatement on full refund. |
| Violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) (dishonesty/misleading) | State Bar: Golub’s statements/omissions led client’s son to believe cases were pending and that discovery was occurring. | Golub: Denied making misleading statements; maintained lack of intent; pointed to health. | Court: Violated Rule 8.4(a)(4) (conduct likely to mislead suffices). |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Woodham, 296 Ga. 618 (definition of misconduct likely to mislead under Rule 8.4(a)(4))
- In the Matter of Hudson, 283 Ga. 79 (one-year suspension for failing to perform substantive work and refund retainers)
- In the Matter of Collins, 261 Ga. 802 (one-year suspension for abandonment and failure to avoid client prejudice)
- In the Matter of Jaconetti, 291 Ga. 772 (three-year suspension for abandonment/neglect across multiple clients)
- In the Matter of Hardwick, 288 Ga. 60 (discipline for misrepresenting filing/status to clients)
- In the Matter of Roberts, 284 Ga. 445 (negligent misrepresentation sufficient for discipline under Rule 8.4(a)(4))
- In the Matter of Steckbauer, 293 Ga. 893 (failure to consult with client violates Rule 1.2)
- In the Matter of Graham, 306 Ga. 380 (violation of Rule 1.3 where lawyer’s inaction led to dismissal)