No Account(ing)

The Georgia Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for six months with conditional reinstatement

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree that Dalziel violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c)’s accounting provision, and we conclude that the proper sanction is a six-month suspension with Dalziel’s reinstatement conditioned on certification that he is fit to practice law.

Facts

In October 2020, W.G., a financial advisor, got a demand letter from a law firm representing one of his clients for losses the client claimed to have sustained through W.G.’s investments. W.G. hired Dalziel, an experienced securities lawyer, to represent him. W.G. paid Dalziel a retainer of $3,650, which covered 10 hours at Dalziel’s rate. In early November 2020, Dalziel sent a written response to the claimant’s lawyer. Later that month, while the demand matter was still open, W.G. requested and received Dalziel’s assistance with an issue related to one of the claimant’s pending investments. The demand matter was still open on January 25, 2021, when W.G.  asked for and got Dalziel’s advice on the possibility of compromising with the claimant.

Ultimately, the claimant filed no suit against W.G. On February 20, 2021, Dalziel called W.G. to let him know that Dalziel was closing W.G.’s file. W.G. once again asked for an accounting of the retainer — he had already asked for an accounting several times in the preceding months, but Dalziel had not given him one. Dalziel said he would get back to him, but W.G. did not hear from Dalziel until four months later, when Dalziel sent him the bill for his services. The bill, which the Bar submitted into evidence at the disciplinary hearing, indicated that Dalziel spent a total of 17.4 hours on several tasks. Dalziel spent at least 10 hours on the demand matter — including 9.6 hours through when the demand response was sent and at least 0.4 hours advising W.G. on the claimant’s pending investment and whether to compromise with the claimant. The invoice indicated that Dalziel applied the $3,650 retainer to the balance, and W.G. owed an additional $2,701. When W.G. did not pay the bill, Dalziel left voice messages in which he threatened to get an arrest warrant for theft of services and warning that “heads” would “roll” if Dalziel did not get paid. W.G. also received an email from Dalziel in which Dalziel described himself as “dying,” “desperate,” and “totally besieged financially.” In the end, W.G. paid Dalziel no additional money, and Dalziel did not refund any portion of the retainer to W.G.

W.G. filed a Bar grievance against Dalziel. In Dalziel’s multiple responses to the Bar, he claimed that W.G. had filed the grievance to avoid paying the bill. Dalziel also called W.G. a “deadbeat” (and other names); alleged that W.G. was hiding assets from creditors; and disclosed information related to W.G.’s prior bankruptcy — in which Dalziel did not represent W.G. In Dalziel’s deposition testimony, he said he learned of the bankruptcy from public records after W.G. filed the grievance. At the disciplinary hearing, W.G. did not testify to whether he told Dalziel about the bankruptcy or the alleged asset hiding. W.G. said he had worked with many alcoholics and Dalziel’s conduct appeared to be due to alcohol abuse, and W.G. no longer trusted lawyers because of Dalziel. Dalziel was evaluated  by a psychologist, whose report was put into evidence. Based on the report, the special master found that Dalziel had a long history of alcohol abuse and significant mental-health issues, both of which were present when Dalziel represented W.G.

Sanction

…based on Dalziel’s violation of Rule 1.15 (I) (c)’s accounting provision, we order that he be suspended from the practice of law for at least six months, effective from the date this opinion is issued, and that he not be reinstated until a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist certifies that he is mentally competent to practice law.

(Mike Frisch)