22 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Morsegreen2 sentences2022See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996) (stating that this Court looks to the 3 The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand. 5 ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate disciplinary sanction). 2022See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996) (stating that this Court looks to the 3 The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand. 5 ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate disciplinary sanction). | 4 | 6 |
In the Matter of Dowdygreen2 sentences2022In its response, the State Bar asserts that Lewis’s petition contains admissions of fact sufficient to authorize the imposition of the discipline he has requested; that the Bar believes that the requested discipline meets this Court’s previously stated objectives for the imposition of discipline in that it will serve “as a penalty to the offender, a deterrent to others and as an indication to laymen that the courts will maintain the ethics of the profession,” In the 1 A public reprimand is the maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16 (d), and 3.2. 4 Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493 2022In its response, the State Bar asserts that Lewis’s petition contains admissions of fact sufficient to authorize the imposition of the discipline he has requested; that the Bar believes that the requested discipline meets this Court’s previously stated objectives for the imposition of discipline in that it will serve “as a penalty to the offender, a deterrent to others and as an indication to laymen that the courts will maintain the ethics of the profession,” In the 1 A public reprimand is the maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16 (d), and 3.2. 4 Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493 | 3 | 4 |
In the Matter of Ramon David Sammons Jrgreen2 sentences2026Rule 9.3 requires lawyers to “respond to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules.” The maximum penalty for violation of that rule is merely a public reprimand. 11 In the Matter of Sammons, 316 Ga. 885, 893 (2023) (Peterson, P.J., concurring in judgment only). 2026Rule 9.3 requires lawyers to “respond to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules.” The maximum penalty for violation of that rule is merely a public reprimand. 11 In the Matter of Sammons, 316 Ga. 885, 893 (2023) (Peterson, P.J., concurring in judgment only). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of Jack O. Morsegreen2 sentences2019The special master recognized that this Court relies on the American Bar Associations Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions for general guidance in determining the appropriate level of discipline, see In the Matter of Morse , 265 Ga. 353 , 354, 456 S.E.2d 52 (1995), and that ABA Standard 4.43 provides that a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. 2019The special master recognized that this Court relies on the American Bar Associations Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions for general guidance in determining the appropriate level of discipline, see In the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353, 354 ( 456 SE2d 52 ) (1995), and that ABA Standard 4.43 provides that a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. | 1 | 2 |
In re Otuonyegreen2 sentences2025See also In the Matter of Otuonye, 302 Ga. 374 ( 806 SE2d 524 ) (2017) (same). 2025See also In the Matter of Otuonye, 302 Ga. 374 ( 806 SE2d 524 ) (2017) (same). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Richard H. Middleton, Jrgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., In the Matter of Middleton, 316 Ga. 825 (890 SE2d 712) (2023) (accepting petition for voluntary surrender of license where attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to disburse client funds and incrementally withdrawing settlement proceeds for personal 4 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides, in relevant part, that “[a lawyer may not] engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The maximum penalty for a violation of GRPC 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. 6 use); In the Matter of Webster, 318 Ga. 27 (896 SE2d 546) (2023) 2025See, e.g., In the Matter of Middleton, 316 Ga. 825 ( 890 SE2d 712 ) (2023) (accepting petition for voluntary surrender of license where attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to disburse client funds and incrementally withdrawing settlement proceeds for personal use); In the Matter of Webster, 318 Ga. 27 ( 896 SE2d 546 ) (2023) 4 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer may not “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The maximum penalty for a violation of GRPC 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Nevada Michael Tugglegreen1 sentence2024We also held that “the aggravating factors we have iden- tified—pattern of misconduct; multiple rules violated; vulnerable clients; lack of remorse or acknowledgement of wrongdoing; failure to make any restitution in one case and failure to make full restitu- tion in the other—substantially outweigh the mitigating factors—no prior discipline; no selfish motive; attestations of good character.” Id. at 278 (6) (b). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Blitchgreen2 sentences2023The Special Master observed that “the primary purpose of a disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional conduct,” In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461) (2011), and that this Court is also concerned with the public’s confidence in the profession. 2023The Special Master observed that “the primary purpose of a disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional conduct,” In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461) (2011), and that this Court is also concerned with the public’s confidence in the profession. | 1 | 1 |
In re Hanzelikgreen2 sentences2022Thompson adds that Florida’s imposition of probation, which is unavailable in Georgia, does not preclude this Court from recognizing the one-year suspension as substantially similar, as this Court has previously approved reciprocal suspensions “without adding time for the probationary period.” In the Matter of Hanzelik, 294 Ga. 727, 728 (755 SE2d 758) (2014) (citing In the Matter of Arthur, 291 Ga. 658 (732 SE2d 86) (2012)). 2022Thompson adds that Florida’s imposition of probation, which is unavailable in Georgia, does not preclude this Court from recognizing the one-year suspension as substantially similar, as this Court has previously approved reciprocal suspensions “without adding time for the probationary period.” In the Matter of Hanzelik, 294 Ga. 727, 728 (755 SE2d 758) (2014) (citing In the Matter of Arthur, 291 Ga. 658 (732 SE2d 86) (2012)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Skandalakisgreen2 sentences2021The State Bar has filed a response, asking that we grant Zeh’s petition in consideration of this Court’s compelling interest in “the public’s confidence in the profession,” In the Matter of Skandalakis, 279 Ga. 865, 866 (2) ( 621 SE2d 750 ) (2005), and because Zeh’s misconduct warrants disbarment. 2021The State Bar has filed a response, asking that we grant Zeh’s petition in consideration of this Court’s compelling interest in “the public’s confidence in the profession,” In the Matter of Skandalakis, 279 Ga. 865, 866 (2) ( 621 SE2d 750 ) (2005), and because Zeh’s misconduct warrants disbarment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Morse
green
2 sentences2019The special master recognized that this Court relies on the American Bar Associations Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions for general guidance in determining the appropriate level of discipline, see In the Matter of Morse , 265 Ga. 353 , 354, 456 S.E.2d 52 (1995), and that ABA Standard 4.43 provides that a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. 2019The special master recognized that this Court relies on the American Bar Associations Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions for general guidance in determining the appropriate level of discipline, see In the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353, 354 ( 456 SE2d 52 ) (1995), and that ABA Standard 4.43 provides that a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In the Matter of Steven Ryan Webster
neutral
2 sentences2025See, e.g., In the Matter of Middleton, 316 Ga. 825 ( 890 SE2d 712 ) (2023) (accepting petition for voluntary surrender of license where attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to disburse client funds and incrementally withdrawing settlement proceeds for personal use); In the Matter of Webster, 318 Ga. 27 ( 896 SE2d 546 ) (2023) 4 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer may not “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The maximum penalty for a violation of GRPC 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. 2025See, e.g., In the Matter of Middleton, 316 Ga. 825 ( 890 SE2d 712 ) (2023) (accepting petition for voluntary surrender of license where attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) by failing to disburse client funds and incrementally withdrawing settlement proceeds for personal use); In the Matter of Webster, 318 Ga. 27 ( 896 SE2d 546 ) (2023) 4 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer may not “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The maximum penalty for a violation of GRPC 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In the Matter of Susan Michele Brown
green
1 sentence2025Lemoine filed in this Court exceptions to the Review Board’s report, in which he challenges many of the Special Master’s factual findings; asserts that the Special Master ignored his mental state and that, when taking this into account, no sanction higher than a suspension should be imposed; and argues, in the alternative, that the State Bar’s formal complaints be dismissed pursuant to In the Matter of Brown, 319 Ga. 465 (2024), because, according to Lemoine, his conduct from which the violations arose was not in connection with the legal representation of a client. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Arthur
green
2 sentences2022Thompson adds that Florida’s imposition of probation, which is unavailable in Georgia, does not preclude this Court from recognizing the one-year suspension as substantially similar, as this Court has previously approved reciprocal suspensions “without adding time for the probationary period.” In the Matter of Hanzelik, 294 Ga. 727, 728 (755 SE2d 758) (2014) (citing In the Matter of Arthur, 291 Ga. 658 (732 SE2d 86) (2012)). 2022Thompson adds that Florida’s imposition of probation, which is unavailable in Georgia, does not preclude this Court from recognizing the one-year suspension as substantially similar, as this Court has previously approved reciprocal suspensions “without adding time for the probationary period.” In the Matter of Hanzelik, 294 Ga. 727, 728 (755 SE2d 758) (2014) (citing In the Matter of Arthur, 291 Ga. 658 (732 SE2d 86) (2012)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In the Matter of Jones-Lewis
green
2 sentences2014In aggravation of discipline, the special master recited Jones-Lewis’s past disciplinary history, including the above-noted suspension and public reprimand in 2012; a Review Panel reprimand in 2010, see In the Matter of Jones-Lewis, 287 Ga. 581 ( 697 SE2d 836 ) (2010); and an Investigative Panel reprimand in 1997. 2014In aggravation of discipline, the special master recited Jones-Lewis’s past disciplinary history, including the above-noted suspension and public reprimand in 2012; a Review Panel reprimand in 2010, see In the Matter of Jones-Lewis, 287 Ga. 581 ( 697 SE2d 836 ) (2010); and an Investigative Panel reprimand in 1997. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re Collins
green
2 sentences2011Although the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment and although disbarment is considered the typical level of discipline imposed in cases like this one involving violent felonies, see In the Matter of Collins, 263 Ga. 185 ( 429 SE2d 908 ) (1993), we recognize that in arriving at the punishment to be imposed, disciplinary cases must be largely governed by their own particular facts. 2011Although the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2) is disbarment and although disbarment is considered the typical level of discipline imposed in cases like this one involving violent felonies, see In the Matter of Collins, 263 Ga. 185 , 429 S.E.2d 908 (1993), we recognize that in arriving at the punishment to be imposed, disciplinary cases must be largely governed by their own particular facts. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Amica Mutual Insurance v. Bourgault
green
2 sentences2011Although the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment and although disbarment is considered the typical level of discipline imposed in cases like this one involving violent felonies, see In the Matter of Collins, 263 Ga. 185 ( 429 SE2d 908 ) (1993), we recognize that in arriving at the punishment to be imposed, disciplinary cases must be largely governed by their own particular facts. 2011Although the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2) is disbarment and although disbarment is considered the typical level of discipline imposed in cases like this one involving violent felonies, see In the Matter of Collins, 263 Ga. 185 , 429 S.E.2d 908 (1993), we recognize that in arriving at the punishment to be imposed, disciplinary cases must be largely governed by their own particular facts. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re Ross
neutral
2 sentences2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). 2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) and 8.4 (a) (4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 ( 651 SE2d 80 ) (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 ( 629 SE2d 809 ) (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients’ names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 ( 602 SE2d 636 ) (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 ( 599 SE2d 185 ) (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In the Matter of McKenna
green
2 sentences2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). 2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Ballard
neutral
2 sentences2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). 2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re King
neutral
2 sentences2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). 2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
SPEEDWELL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. Chatham County
neutral
2 sentences2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15(I), 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 , 651 S.E.2d 80 (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 , 629 S.E.2d 809 (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients' names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 , 602 S.E.2d 636 (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 , 599 S.E.2d 185 (2004). 2010This Court has disbarred attorneys for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) and 8.4 (a) (4), see In the Matter of McKenna, 282 Ga. 469 ( 651 SE2d 80 ) (2007); In the Matter of Ballard, 280 Ga. 504 ( 629 SE2d 809 ) (2006), and for settling claims without client authority and forging clients’ names on settlement documents, see In the Matter of King, 278 Ga. 384 ( 602 SE2d 636 ) (2004); In the Matter of Ross, 278 Ga. 213 ( 599 SE2d 185 ) (2004). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.