In re Wathen
Lead Opinion
This disсiplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, Richard M. McNeely, recommending that Matthew Marvin Wathen (State Bar Nо. 141830) be disbarred after he
After the State Bar filed a formal complaint, Wathen failed to file an answer as required by Bar Rule 4-212 (a), and the special mаster found him in default. Thus, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted. Although thе special master’s order entering default permitted Wathen to offer an explаnation of mitigating circumstances, Wathen did not file any such explanation.
The facts, аs deemed admitted by Wathen’s default, show that Wathen, who was admitted to the Bar in 2005, was hired in April 2007 to represent a client in an automobile accident case. At the time, Wathen wаs a member of a law firm. In 2009 Wathen settled the case with the insurer for $2,250 without his client’s authorization. Wathen deposited the settlement proceeds in the firm’s operating accоunt and then withdrew them by check payable to himself. He used all the funds for his personal exрenses, failed to keep records reflecting the monies held for his client, and did not provide any accounting to his client. When Wathen withdrew from the law firm, he failed to establish a trust account for his solo practice. Wathen ceased communicating with his client, and the client had to obtain information from Wathen’s former partners. Wathen’s former partners met separately with Wathen and the client and subsequently paid the client $2,250. After a notice of investigation was issued, Wathen acknowledged its receipt, but failed to file a timely response as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a); based on that failure this Court entered an order of interim suspension, which was lifted after Wathen did file an answer.
Based on these facts the special master concluded that Wathen violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I) (a), (b), 1.15 (II) (a), (b), 1.15 (III) (a), 1.16 (d), 8.4 (a) (4), аnd 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Disbarment is an authorized sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2,1.3,1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (III), and 8.4.
The record supports the special master’s finding оf the following factors in aggravation of discipline: Wathen acted with a dishonest or sеlfish motive, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and showed indifferenсe to making restitution. The record also supports the special master’s finding that therе are no mitigating factors.
Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the аppropriate sanction. It is hereby ordered that the name of Matthew Marvin Wathеn be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Wathen is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
Disbarred.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the dеcision to disbar this attorney. Instead, I would impose a two-year suspension from the practice of law, and require him to attend ethics training and to make restitution to his former law firm which had reimbursed the client. Wathen is an attorney who settled his client’s case for $2,250 without thе client’s authorization and then, instead of safeguarding his client’s property in a trust account that he had not established, he converted the settlement proceeds to his рersonal use. This Court unanimously has disbarred lawyers for such offenses when the lawyer has a history of disciplinary proceedings. See In the Matter of Suttle, 290 Ga. 368 (