Criminal Defense Lapses Draw Disbarment
An attorney who had defaulted on ethics charges has been disbarred by the Georgia Supreme Court for misconduct in multiple criminal defense matters
The facts, as deemed admitted by Strang’s default, show that in SDBD No. 7794, Strang was appointed to represent a client following his conviction for murder and entered an appearance on his behalf in January 2019. The client’s motion for new trial hearing was rescheduled multiple times. On one occasion, Strang represented to the trial court that she needed additional time, and on another occasion, she informed the court that she had health issues and had gotten “backlogged.” The court ultimately held a hearing on the motion in October 2020. Prior to this hearing, Strang told the court that her client was concerned because he had written Strang asking for his trial transcripts, but Strang never responded. Strang denied receiving the correspondence, although she admitted that she failed to send the client a copy of the brief she had filed on his behalf. In July 2022, the court entered an order denying the motion. Subsequently, the client filed a grievance against Strang with the State Bar, complaining that Strang only communicated with him at court appearances and did not adequately prepare to represent him. Strang never responded to the grievance.
In SDBD No. 7795, Strang was appointed to represent a client seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of aggravated assault. The client filed a grievance against Strang in which he alleged that Strang had not communicated with him regarding his desire to withdraw the plea. Strang responded to the grievance in October 2022, stating that she “ha[d] not yet been able to obtain a copy of [his] plea transcript[,]” which she labeled as “critical” to “any determination of the validity of [the client’s] plea.” The client rebutted Strang’s response in November 2022 and claimed that his transcript was filed in the clerk’s office and dated January 9, 2017. Strang responded to the client’s rebuttal in February 2023 and claimed that she had since been able to review the client’s transcript and believed that his plea was “constitutionally sound.” At Strang’s disciplinary hearing, which she did not attend, counsel for the State Bar represented that the client’s transcript “had been filed into the record in 2017” and that it was “unclear” as to “why [Strang] would have had problems obtaining the trial transcript when she responded” to her client “in 2022.” In her recommendation to disbar, the Special Master found that Strang “admitted that she essentially abandoned the case because she unilaterally determined that [the client’s] appeal was without merit.”
In SDBD No. 7796, Strang was appointed to represent a client who was convicted of enticing a child. During her representation, Strang failed to communicate with the client, failed to consult with him about his case, failed to inform him of at least one court date, and failed to attend at least two court dates herself. She filed an amended motion for new trial over ten months after she was appointed to the case and failed to file certain amended or supplemental materials that she represented to the court that she would file thereafter. Further, Strang requested on multiple occasions that the court grant her additional time to prepare for the client’s case. And despite the client writing to her to inform her that he did not want her to request any additional delays and to tell her what grounds he wanted her to include in the supplemental brief, Strang did not respond to the client, continued to request additional time, and never filed the supplemental brief. Subsequently, the client filed a grievance against her with the State Bar. At the evidentiary hearing on this disciplinary matter, which Strang failed to attend, the Special Master noted that Strang’s response to the client’s grievance did not address her lack of communication with the client and, instead, she focused on the merits of his case.
In SDBD No. 7869, Strang was appointed to represent a client in defending against three felony charges. In January 2020, she entered an appearance on behalf of the client, and in February 2021 — over a year later — filed a waiver of arraignment and entered a not guilty plea. It does not appear from the record that Strang made any further filings in this case, and, in September 2021, the client filed a pro se request for a speedy trial, stating that he had not been able to communicate with Strang. In September 2023 — over two years later — the superior court entered an order directing the Georgia Public Defender Council to appoint a new attorney for the client because Strang had been suspended from the practice of law due to her failure to respond to the State Bar’s initial Notice of Investigation. During the year in which there was no activity in his criminal case, the client filed a grievance with the State Bar, alleging that Strang failed to communicate with him and failed to diligently pursue his case. Strang responded to the grievance, acknowledging that she had not pushed for trial nor visited the client in jail due to her own health conditions.
Sanction
Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction, and that disbarment is consistent with prior cases in which an attorney admitted, by virtue of default, to violating similar provisions of the GRPC that carry disbarment as a sanction and failed to participate in the disciplinary process.
(Mike Frisch)