Head Case

The Georgia Supreme Court has rejected a notice of discipline seeking a public reprimand of an attorney

Despite Head’s default, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to move forward with the sanction recommended by the Bar. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the Bar’s filing how aggravating Head’s prior disciplinary offenses should be, as the Bar has provided no information regarding the misconduct that led to the three cited prior instances of discipline imposed on Head. Because we lack that information, we cannot determine to what extent these prior disciplinary matters should be aggravating as to the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed here.

The misconduct

The facts, deemed admitted by Head’s default, are as follows. In June 2020, Head agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter. Head received a fee of $1,500 from the client, filed a motion for bond on the client’s behalf, and represented the client at two bond hearings. Head’s representation of the client ended on June 1, 2021, but despite being informed by the client that the client would be unable to obtain the services of a public defender until Head withdrew, Head failed to take any action to effectuate such a withdrawal until December 8, 2021. Head also failed to respond to numerous requests between June 1, 2021 and December 8, 2021 for updates regarding whether he had moved to withdraw. The client was finally able to obtain the services of a public defender on January 14, 2022.

With a caution

we caution the Bar that, despite Head’s default, should the Bar seek to impose a more serious sanction on Head than the one sought here, he should be given a renewed opportunity to respond to any such filing by the Bar.

(Mike Frisch)