In re Turner
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | S20Y0947, S20Y0948 |
| Citation | 311 Ga. 204,857 S.E.2d 197 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF Joseph Harold TURNER, Jr. (two cases). |
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
These disciplinary matters are before this Court on two notices of discipline, both of which seek the disbarment of Joseph Harold Turner, Jr. (State Bar No. 719482), who has been a member of the Bar since 1997. The State Bar attempted to serve Turner by mail at the address listed with the Bar, and subsequently at the same address personally, but the sheriff filed a return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then properly served Turner by publication, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Turner failed to file a notice of rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
In Case No. S20Y0947, as deemed admitted, the facts show that Turner was hired by a client in a civil matter, he subsequently settled the claim, and the client executed a release. A check for the settlement funds was issued and deposited by Turner. However, Turner did not disburse the funds to the client or respond to her subsequent requests for information or to those from the Bar's Office of the General Counsel. Based on this conduct, the Bar concluded that Turner violated the following Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d) : Rule 1.3, when he failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in disbursing the client's settlement funds; Rule 1.4 (a), when he failed to respond to the client's inquiries about her settlement funds and his failure to disburse the funds; Rule 1.15 (I) (c), when he failed to promptly deliver the client's settlement funds; Rule 8.4 (a) (4), when he wrongfully retained the settlement funds; and Rule 9.3, when he failed to respond to the Office of the General Counsel and the State Disciplinary Board. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I) (c), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment; the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4 and 9.3 is a public reprimand. Although the Bar notes that Turner has no prior disciplinary history, it cites no other factors in mitigation of discipline, and it notes in aggravation of discipline that Turner had a dishonest or selfish motive and has considerable experience in the practice of law.
In Case No. S20Y0948, as deemed admitted, the facts show that the State Bar received notice from Wells Fargo Bank regarding a withdrawal that caused Turner's attorney trust account to overdraw. Turner failed to respond to inquiries concerning the overdraft from the Bar's Overdraft Notification Coordinator or to the Bar's notice of investigation. Based on this conduct, the Bar concluded that Turner violated Rule 1.15 (I) (a), when he failed to maintain complete records for his trust account; Rule 1.15 (II) (b), when he withdrew funds from his trust account for his personal use, failed to maintain sufficient funds in his trust account to cover maintenance fees, and failed to keep records to reflect at all times the exact balance held for each client or third person; Rule 1.15 (III) (b) (1), when he failed to properly designate his trust account; Rule 1.15 (III) (e), when he failed to respond to the Notice of Investigation and failed to produce information and records at the request of the State Disciplinary Board; and Rule 9.3, when he failed to respond to the Overdraft Notification Coordinator and the State Disciplinary Board. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), 1.15 (III) (b) (1), and 1.15 (III) (e) is disbarment; the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 9.3 is a public reprimand. The Bar notes the same factors in aggravation as it did in Case No. S20Y0947.
Having considered the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. See In the Matter of Berry , 310 Ga. 158, 159, 848 S.E.2d 71 (2020) (); In the Matter of Rambeau , 302 Ga. 367, 369, 806 S.E.2d 572 (2017) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial