Habitual Intoxication

The Georgia Supreme Court has imposed disbarment for an attorney’s misconduct in two matters

As to S18Y0601, Barton was appointed in November 2015 to represent a defendant on charges of theft by taking, but he failed to communicate with the client or to take any action on the client’s behalf. After both the client and the client’s grandmother contacted the judge overseeing the client’s case to complain about Barton’s failure to communicate or take action on the case, the court scheduled a hearing to address the matter. Barton contacted the judge’s assistant to say that he would be unable to attend because he was ill, but was told that his appearance would nonetheless be required. Barton failed to appear and was removed from the client’s case. As to S18Y0602, Barton represented a different criminal defendant, but he failed to appear at two separate calendar calls and did not notify either his client or the court that he would be absent; Barton did later appear at a status hearing ordered by the court and resolved the client’s case with the prosecutor. In both matters, Barton admits that he is unable to remember the events in question because of his abuse of alcohol.

The special master found misconduct and

The special master also notes that Rule 4-104 provides that “want of a sound mind” and “habitual intoxication” may constitute grounds for removing an attorney from the practice of law. In mitigation of discipline, the special master notes that Barton lacks a prior disciplinary history, but, in aggravation, the special master notes Barton’s failure to respond to the disciplinary proceedings; the special master further notes that Barton’s failure to respond to the disciplinary proceedings deprived the special master of any additional evidence in mitigation of discipline.

(Mike Frisch)