Roberts, Matter of, 551
| Decision Date | 06 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 551,551 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rodney H. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William P. Smith III, General Counsel, Bridget B. Bagley, Asst. General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, Atlanta, for the State Bar.
Special Master Wm. Jerry Westbrook, Sommerville.
The State Bar of Georgia instituted disciplinary proceedings against Rodney H. Roberts alleging a violation of Standards 22(b), 44 and 68 of Bar Rule 4-102. The complaint centers around his employment to collect a debt on a contingency fee arrangement. The complaint alleged he neglected the cause of his client, and advised his client he had filed suit when he had not. In effect he withdrew from representation without advising his client or returning his papers or property.
After a finding of probable cause by the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board, the Bar filed a formal complaint and Roberts acknowledged service. From this point no further response came from Roberts. Counsel for the Bar communicated by letter offering Roberts the opportunity to respond after default but still no communication came forth. Subsequently, the Special Master granted the State Bar's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law by default and found that the failure to answer amounted to an admission of the allegations in the formal complaint. The Special Master's report contained no recommendation for disciplinary action, but he submitted the case to the Review Panel for the State Disciplinary Board for its recommendation.
The Review Panel took note of Roberts' failure to respond to the formal complaint and pointed out that during the initial investigation, Bar counsel gave Roberts two opportunities to respond informally to the charges. Roberts did not seize the opportunities.
The Court views a lawyer's duty to respond to pleadings in disciplinary proceedings as an important aspect of the lawyer's obligation to the profession. We do not take indifference to that obligation lightly. Bar Rule 4-212(a) enunciates the lawyer's burden to answer disciplinary proceedings. The same rule provides the penalty is that "... the charges shall be deemed admitted." The failure to answer is a violation of Standard 68 and demonstrates a lack of regard for the system which regulates the profession. Because of this, the flagrant failure to answer may be considered an aggravation of the charge against the lawyer. The Review Panel indicated it did just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Zoota, S00Y1230.
...68); In re Kendall, 260 Ga. 767, 400 S.E.2d 13 (1991) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 21, 44, and 68); In re Roberts, 257 Ga. 721, 363 S.E.2d 256 (1988) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68). But see In re Keeble, 271 Ga. 623, 523 S.E.2d 563 (1999......
-
Zang, Matter of
...attorney disciplinary case admits not only the well-pleaded facts but also the charges in the disciplinary complaint); In re Roberts, 257 Ga. 721, 363 S.E.2d 256 (1988) (attorney suspended from practice for violating ethical standards and failing to respond to the disciplinary proceedings).......
-
IN THE MATTER OF BRADLEY
...In re Gardner, 265 Ga. 482, 458 S.E.2d 355 (1995) (six-month suspension with conditional reinstatement); In the Matter of Roberts, 257 Ga. 721, 363 S.E.2d 256 (1988) (six-month suspension). But see In the Matter of Soons, 273 Ga. 329, 540 S.E.2d 614 (2001), and In the Matter of Woodard, 270......
-
In re Erion, S00Y1238.
...of Kendall, 260 Ga. 767, 400 S.E.2d 13 (1991) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 21, 44, and 68); In the Matter of Roberts, 257 Ga. 721, 363 S.E.2d 256 (1988) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68). The punishment appropriate to Erion's violations of ......