It’s A Date

The Georgia Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney based on findings related to a document alteration in a contract dispute

In his report and recommendation, the Special Master recounted that in September 2021, Nwosu filed a complaint on behalf of his clients, asserting a claim for breach of contract related to a business dispute. Nwosu attached the alleged contract to the complaint as Exhibit A. No date was included on the original contract, but Nwosu hand-labeled the document attached to the complaint as “Plaintiff Exhibit A. Agreement between [the parties] on March 26, 2016.” Nwosu also handwrote the date “March 26, 2016” in an additional place toward the top of the document.

The defendants in the suit filed a motion to dismiss on various grounds, including the statute of limitations. In response, Nwosu filed a “Motion Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” and subsequently filed an amended motion with an attached copy of the alleged contract. This copy of the contract contained different handwritten alterations, including a different date than that which had been written on the copy submitted with the complaint. On this copy of the contract, Nwosu wrote, “Plaintiff Exhibit ‘E’” and, separately, “5/12/2019.”

On August 1, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. During the hearing, Nwosu told the trial court that the contract dated May 12, 2019, “was completed by the [opposing party] in his own handwriting, his name.” More than halfway through the hearing, the trial court judge’s staff attorney alerted the judge to the date discrepancy between the two versions of the contract that had been submitted to the court. The judge questioned Nwosu about the matter. Nwosu initially did not answer the judge’s questions, but eventually admitted that he had initially written the date “March 26, 2016” on the exhibit and then altered the date to “May 12, 2019.” On August 8, 2022, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and subsequently, Nwosu filed a “Motion [for] New Trial and/or in the Alternative Judgment Notwithstanding the Judgment.” The defendant responded in opposition and filed a motion seeking attorney fees.

The trial court held another hearing on these motions, during which Nwosu again admitted that he made the alterations. The trial court summarily denied Nwosu’s motion and granted the defendant’s motion for attorney fees on the basis that “Plaintiffs filed the case outside of the statute of limitations and when Defense Counsel brought up the statute of limitations issue . . . , Plaintiffs tried to mislead the [c]ourt and filed [a brief] with the same exhibit but with a different ‘contract date.’”

Intent

the Special Master rejected Nwosu’s claims that he was unaware he could not alter the documents and that his actions were due to ignorance and negligence, concluding that Nwosu intended to mislead the court to help his client’s case. Specifically, the Special Master explained that when asked during the evidentiary hearing whether he believed that
Nwosu’s actions were negligent, the trial court judge testified, “No. In fact, it was the exact opposite,” and that Nwosu’s actions were “intentional, not negligent.”

The court rejected objections to the Special Master’s findings

we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Nwosu’s conduct and is consistent with the sanction imposed in similar cases. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Johnbull Okechukwu Nwosu be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia.

(Mike Frisch)