In the Matter of Robbie M. Levin., S11Y0598.

Decision Date26 April 2011
Docket NumberNo. S11Y0598.,S11Y0598.
Citation289 Ga. 170,709 S.E.2d 808,11 FCDR 1336
PartiesIn the Matter of Robbie M. LEVIN.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.Colette Resnik Steel, Atlanta, for Levin.PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the special master recommending that Respondent, Robbie M. Levin (State Bar No. 448280), be suspended for six months based on his guilty pleas to misdemeanor distributing obscene material (OCGA § 16–12–80) and criminal attempt to commit interference with custody (OCGA § 16–5–45), which the special master found violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4–102(d). The State Bar and Levin have filed exceptions to the special master's report.

The facts show that Levin began practicing law in 1996 and developed the habit of visiting sexually oriented “chat rooms” and exposing himself to others via a webcam. In 2007 then 36–year–old Levin made contact with a 16–year–old girl whose mother was a friend of his. He obtained the mother's permission to contact the girl and did so through Facebook. He communicated with her four or five times after which, unbeknownst to Levin, he was communicating with an officer pretending to be the girl. At some point Levin revealed an image of himself via webcam in which he was touching his penis, and then he arranged to see a movie with someone he believed to be the girl. When Levin arrived at the meeting place, he was arrested. Levin's arrest received media attention and he retreated to his parents' house and did not practice law for six months (between October 2007 and April 2008). Levin voluntarily sought treatment through the Behavioral Medicine Institute. His licensed professional counselor, Osborn, testified at the hearing before the special master that Levin had a history of dysthymia (low level chronic depression), which was aggravated by his arrest. Testing indicated that Levin's sexual behavior was out of control but that he does not meet the criteria for pedophilia or any other paraphilia (other deviant sexual behaviors in the DSM–IV). Osborn testified that Levin was open and honest, and did not try to minimize or exaggerate his conduct. She recommended that Levin participate in specialized sex offender treatment. Levin participated in the treatment, which consists of 54 weeks of 90–minute group therapy sessions (which Levin completed) and a maintenance phase of 90–minute group therapy sessions once a month, which is ongoing. Osborn stated that Levin has made positive improvement and is rehabilitated. Levin performed almost 300 hours of community service while living with his parents prior to entering his pleas in 2010. He was sentenced to 40 days in jail, of which he served 20; 12 months on probation for each count; 100 hours of community service for each count; and a $1,000 fine for each count. Levin has paid the fines and pays his assessed probation fees. As terms of probation Levin is prohibited from using “chat rooms” and social networking sites, having contact with the victim's family or going to the Clayton County courthouse, and he must continue counseling. Levin made a verbal apology to the victim's family in open court and also prepared a written apology. Levin was married in 2007 and now is working as a lawyer again. Several witnesses testified on his behalf and commented that they have noticed a positive change in him; that he is more humble and appreciative; and that he has performed legal services for them in a good and professional manner. Attorneys who have worked with Levin commented positively on his legal skills and consider him an asset to the legal community.

The special master determined that Levin's conduct in asking a friend if he could contact her daughter and then attempting to expose himself via webcam, as well as attempting to meet the daughter and suggesting that she fabricate a story about her whereabouts, constituted misdemeanors involving moral turpitude which relate to Levin's fitness to practice law as they involved dishonesty and possibly a breach of trust, see Comment 3 to Rule 8.4. In mitigation of discipline the special master found no prior disciplinary history, no personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure and a cooperative attitude towards the disciplinary proceedings, good character and a positive reputation, a delay in the disciplinary proceedings (based on no fault of either party, Levin was not convicted until more than two years after the commission of the crimes and the State Bar could not bring proceedings until he was convicted), the imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse, and the voluntary suspension of the practice of law for six months, see In the Matter of Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 702 S.E.2d 136 (2010) (accepting voluntary surrender of license nunc pro tunc to date Onipede voluntarily stopped practicing law). In aggravation, the special master found vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The special master concluded that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors and determined that the State Bar's recommendation of one to two years suspension was excessive. The special master recommends a suspension of six months with reinstatement conditioned upon confirmation from Osborn, or another qualified professional, that Levin has remained in the maintenance phase of his therapy and that he still is considered to be rehabilitated.

In its exception, the State Bar notes that the appropriate sanction in a disciplinary case serves as “a penalty to the offender, a deterrent to others, and as an indication to laymen that the courts will maintain the ethics of the profession,” In the Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493, 277 S.E.2d 36 (1981), and that a suspension of 12 to 24 months meets these goals and is consistent with discipline imposed in other cases involving sexual misconduct. As precedent, the State Bar cites In the Matter of Jackel, 275 Ga. 568, 569 S.E.2d 835 (2002) (disbarred after pleading guilty to one count of misdemeanor sexual battery and one count of misdemeanor solicitation of sodomy when he agreed to reduce his fee in exchange for sex); In the Matter of Stewart, 275 Ga. 199, 563 S.E.2d 859 (2002) (18–month suspension after pleading guilty to misdemeanor solicitation of sodomy relating to agreement to represent client in exchange for sexual favors although he never engaged in sexual activity with or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Tucker
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 16, 2014
    ...and notes that he already has been sanctioned for his conduct by the bankruptcy court. This Court, however, in In the Matter of Levin, 289 Ga. 170, 175, 709 S.E.2d 808 (2011), expressly rejected as a mitigating factor the imposition of prior punishment for the same conduct, citing (In the M......
  • In re Childers, S15Y1540.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 5, 2015
    ...to legal obligations and implicated his trustworthiness, thus relating to his fitness to practice law, see In the Matter of Levin,289 Ga. 170, 709 S.E.2d 808 (2011), as the only conceivable purpose for possessing and retaining a stolen vehicle tag is to mislead law enforcement and/or the ta......
  • In re Hutt, S12Y1087.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 7, 2012
    ...another state where the attorney's “decision to voluntarily cease practicing law in Georgia had not been documented”); In re Levin, 289 Ga. 170, 174, 709 S.E.2d 808 (2011) (declining to make suspension retroactive “because, although Levin stopped practicing law for six months, he did not re......
  • Abt v. Abt.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 26, 2011
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • To Err is Human, to Apologize is Hard: the Role of Apologies in Lawyer Discipline
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 34-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...Braham, 409 P.3d 655, 665 (Colo. 2017) (apology to clients); In re Carucci, 132 A.3d 1161 (Del. 2016) (apology to cli-ents); In re Levin, 709 S.E.2d 808, 809 (Ga. 2011) (apology to victim’s family); In re LeBlanc, 884 So. 2d 552, 554, 556 (La. 2004) (apology to client); Lawyer Disciplinary ......
  • Legal Ethics - Patrick Emery Longan
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 63-1, September 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...did not keep her reasonably informed, 39. Id. at 449-52, 704 S.E.2d at 781-82. 40. Id. at 454, 704 S.E.2d at 784. 41. In re Levin, 289 Ga. 170, 170-71, 709 S.E.2d 808, 809 (2011). 42. Id. at 173, 175, 709 S.E.2d at 810-11. 43. In re Suttle, 288 Ga. 14, 14, 16, 701 S.E.2d 154, 154, 156 (2010......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT