In re Suttle

• Decision Date: 04 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. S10Y1548.,S10Y1548.
• Parties: In the Matter of Kota Chalfant SUTTLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

701 S.E.2d 154

288 Ga. 14

10 FCDR 3181

In the Matter of Kota Chalfant SUTTLE.

No. S10Y1548.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 4, 2010.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

Wilson, Morton & Downs, James E. Spence, Jr., Decatur, for Suttle.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the report and recommendation of special master William Lee Skinner, who recommends suspending Respondent Kota Chalfant Suttle (State Bar No. 693483) for his violation of Rule 8.4 of Bar Rule 4-102(d). On October 28, 2009, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Suttle, who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 2002, pled guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to one felony count of residential mortgage fraud, see OCGA §§ 16-8-102(2) and 16-8-105(a), and was given a misdemeanor sentence of six months probation as a first offender under OCGA § 17-10-5. A felony conviction constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 of Bar Rule 4-102(d), the maximum penalty for which is disbarment.

After a lengthy hearing, the special master found that on June 30, 2005 Suttle presided over the back-to-back real estate closings that gave rise to the criminal charges against him; that a GBI agent was present at the closings and Suttle was arrested on that very day; that, for reasons unexplained, the criminal charges against Suttle were not presented to the Grand Jury until April 2008; that the case was finally closed in late 2009; and that the State Bar then promptly filed this disciplinary action. Although Suttle argued that he was not guilty of any crime, the special master properly rejected that argument based on Suttle's guilty plea, see Rule 8.4(b)(2), and concludedthat the Bar established Suttle's violation of Rule 8.4. We agree.

In considering the appropriate punishment, the special master found in aggravation that Suttle refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; that the misconduct was committed in theactual practice of law; that it was directed at a client; and that Suttle apparently profited (at least nominally) from the misconduct. In mitigation, the special master found that, at the time of the incident, Suttle had only been practicing law for 2 1/2 years and thus was relatively inexperienced in the practice of law; that Suttle had no other disciplinary history; that Suttle is a "person of good character," but for the criminal conviction (a fact evidenced by testimony from Suttle's wife and professional friends); that Suttle cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings; and that Suttle has suffered a "substantial penalty" due to the delay in bringing these disciplinary proceedings to a resolution. Regarding the "penalty" suffered by the delay, the special master found that following the incident there were reports of it on the internet which ruined Suttle's reputation and caused him to shut down his practice a few months thereafter and that, as a result, he effectively has been suspended from the practice of law for a period in excess of four years, causing himself and his family to suffer significant financial hardship. Given those factors, the special master recommended that Suttle be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, with his reinstatement conditioned upon his consultation with the State Bar's Law Office Management Program and his agreement to implement its directives in connection with the reestablishment of his law office. The special master further recommended that Suttle be required to attend the first Ethics School conducted by the Office of General Counsel after the date of his reinstatement; and that Suttle be allowed to work at Atlanta Legal Aid, the Georgia Legal Services Program, or a Public Defender's Office, as a...