In re Woodham
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed by Respondent John Floyd Woodham in which he admits to violating Rules 3.5 (c) (lawyer shall not, without regard to whether such lawyer represents a client in the matter, engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) and 4.2 (a) (lawyer who is representing a client in a matter shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by constitutional law or statute) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Woodham seeks imposition of a Review Panel reprimand. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 3.5 (c) is a public reprimand, and for Rule 4.2 the maximum penalty is disbarment. The State Bar filed a response expressing no objection to the petition.
The underlying facts show.that Woodham filed complaints in intervention in two bond validation cases on behalf of himself and an entity he controls, Citizens for Ethics in Government, LLC. He phoned the offices of the
While the State Bar responded that it had no objection to Woodham’s Petition for Voluntary Discipline, we find such punishment to be inappropriate in this case. In reaching its conclusion, the State Bar noted that there were few similar cases and appears to have focused merely on Woodham’s act of “engaging] in communication with an individual in the legal system . . . knowing] that such communication is improper.” In doing so, the State Bar focused its review too narrowly, giving too little weight to the seriousness of the many allegations that remain. As a result, we reject Woodham’s Petition for Voluntary Discipline, and we direct the State Bar to consider the full array of ethical violations at play in this matter.
Petition for voluntary discipline rejected.