Default To Disbarbment

The Georgia Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who failed to respond to a client complaint and did not participate in the ensuing hearing 

The special master’s thorough report found that Jennings, who was admitted to the Bar in 1987, was representing a client in an estate matter pending in court. Although the client terminated Jennings and retained new counsel in March 2017 and new counsel immediately sought to obtain the client file, Jennings failed to cooperate with the substitution of counsel and never provided the full file. Instead, Jennings provided a partial file that omitted documents showing that Jennings had failed to respond to requests for admission. New counsel was required to seek the court’s assistance in obtaining the file, but Jennings failed to appear at the hearing scheduled on the matter, and even after the court ordered Jennings to turn over the file and to pay attorney fees, Jennings failed to comply with the court’s order. By successfully filing a motion to withdraw the matters deemed admitted by Jennings’s failures, the client’s new counsel was able to mitigate the harm Jennings caused.

The court

we concur with the special master’s recommendation that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. In addition to abandoning the legal matter entrusted to him, Jennings intentionally concealed his misconduct, further harming his client, and then blatantly ignored the trial court’s order to pay the court-ordered attorney fees for the trouble he caused. Finally, Jennings refused to participate in the disciplinary process. These facts, which show a pattern of misconduct, support the sanction of disbarment.

There are places – I am admitted in one – where this conduct would draw a slap on the wrist. (Mike Frisch)