In the Matter of Sherri Jefferson, 307 Ga. 50

The special master struck Sherri Jefferson’s answer and found her in default after she willfully failed to respond to discovery and refused to testify (invoking the Fifth Amendment); the complaint’s allegations were therefore deemed admitted.
Admitted conduct: Jefferson had a romantic relationship with a former custody client, later hired a private investigator and surveilled the former client, his son, and another woman, and disparaged that woman to her employer.
Jefferson made knowingly false statements to magistrate courts and filed two verified federal complaints containing false allegations; she also communicated with the other woman despite the woman being represented by counsel.
The special master and Review Board found a pattern of dishonest conduct, prior discipline (2006 reprimands), and aggravating factors; the Review Board agreed with most findings and recommended disbarment (it declined to find a Rule 8.1 violation).
Jefferson sought a jury trial under OCGA § 15-19-32 and challenged procedural rulings; the Supreme Court denied a jury trial, affirmed the default-based findings that Jefferson violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.2(a), and 8.4(a)(4), and ordered disbarment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jefferson’s default/admitted facts support Bar Rule violations and disbarment	Default admits allegations; facts support violations of Rules 3.3, 4.2, 8.4 and warrant disbarment	Challenges to findings, contends some findings improper and disputes sanction	Court held admitted facts support violations and disbarment
Whether striking the answer and drawing adverse inference from Fifth Amendment invocation was proper	Sanctions for discovery failure proper; adverse inferences permissible in disciplinary context	Invocation of Fifth and statute should prevent adverse findings	Court upheld sanctions and adverse inference doctrine in discipline context
Whether Jefferson was entitled to a jury trial under OCGA § 15-19-32	Jefferson sought jury on material factual issues under statute	State argued court’s inherent authority over attorney discipline precludes jury	Court denied jury demand; disciplinary proceedings are judicially controlled
Whether Rule 8.1 (false statements in disciplinary matter) was proven	Special master found Jefferson lied about receipt of discovery, supporting Rule 8.1	Review Board disputed timing; argued those statements post-dated the complaint	Court agreed violations of Rules 3.3, 4.2, 8.4 were established and disbarment appropriate; it did not rely solely on Rule 8.1

In the Matter of Podvin, 304 Ga. 378 (procedural rule on application of former Bar Rules to proceedings begun before rule changes)
In the Matter of Henley, 271 Ga. 21 (adverse inference may result from invoking Fifth in disciplinary proceedings)
In the Matter of Redding, 269 Ga. 537 (invocation of Fifth in disciplinary context may lead to adverse inferences)
In the Matter of Levine, 303 Ga. 284 (striking answer and sanctions for discovery violations upheld)
In the Matter of Browning-Baker, 292 Ga. 809 (disciplinary sanctions for discovery noncompliance affirmed)
In the Matter of Hawk, 269 Ga. 165 (default for discovery failures deems complaint allegations admitted)
Stroud v. Elias, 247 Ga. 191 (default admits definite allegations and fair inferences)
In the Matter of Koehler, 297 Ga. 794 (disbarment appropriate for repeated frivolous or deceitful filings)
In the Matter of Minsk, 296 Ga. 152 (disbarment appropriate for pattern of knowingly false statements)
Henderson v. HSI Financial Svcs., 266 Ga. 844 (Supreme Court’s inherent power to regulate attorney discipline)