Interception

The Georgia Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline, recommending the disbarment of James W. Davis, III, (State Bar No. 283824) for his role in intercepting a multi-milliondollar payment from an insurance company to its policy holder.

The facts were established by default

The facts, as deemed admitted by Davis’s default, are as follows.In December 2018, Coface North America Insurance
Company (the “Insurer”), a company specializing in commercial trade credit insurance, agreed to pay one of its policyholders a claim related payment in the amount of $3,093,085.50. On December 18, 2018, the Insurer requested payment instructions from the policyholder’s insurance broker and received payment instructions via email from a policyholder representative, which included wire transfer information for a bank account in the name of the policyholder at Citibank, N.A. On December 19, 2018, an unknown individual purporting to be the same policyholder representative sent an email to the Insurer, instructing the Insurer to disregard the payment instructions transmitted the previous day and to instead wire the funds to a bank account held by the policyholder’s attorney. Attached to the email was a letter of authorization and declaration that included new wiring instructions to a Wells Fargo account in
the name of J. Davis – Attorney at Law, LLC IOLTA (“Davis’s IOLTA”). On December 21, 2018, the Insurer wired

On December 31, 2018, the Insurer was informed that its emails with the policyholder had been compromised and that the funds at issue were never received by the policyholder. The Insurer reported the incident to Citibank and the FBI, and on January 3, 2019, counsel for the Insurer sent a “cease and desist” letter to Davis demanding return of the funds. The Insurer was subsequently notified that Wells Fargo credited $2,540,319.30 from Davis’s IOLTA account to the Insurer, which left $552,755.2o unaccounted for by Davis. Additionally, the payment from Davis’s IOLTA account to the Insurer included $3,500.00 belonging to clients of Davis, of which Davis was aware.

Davis initially denied any knowledge of or participation in the misappropriation of these funds and claimed that he was also a victim in this scheme. However, the factual allegations of the Notice of Discipline—which Davis has admitted by virtue of his default— state that Davis was “a knowing and intentional participant in the interception and theft of the [funds]” and “knowingly used his attorney trust account to carry out the interception and theft of the [funds].

Sanction

Having reviewed the record and considered Davis’s factual admissions herein, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this disciplinary matter and is consistent with similar cases in which an attorney utilized fraud to misappropriate funds and defaulted during the disciplinary process.

(Mike Frisch)