alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
46979.

#### McEVER v. FIRST UNION BANK OF ROME.

(383 SE2d 889)

Hunt, Justice.

Medi-care Services, Inc., prior to its merger into Angelica Healthcare Services Group, Inc., established a “Deferred Compensation Trust” for the benefit of three of its employees, one of whom was McEver. The employees petitioned the court under OCGA § 53-12-3 (d)1 to terminate the trust, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the trustee, The First Union Bank of Rome. The employees appeal.

The trust provided that former employee, Frances Legg, receive $100 per month “during her lifetime or for 25 years, whichever is less beginning in July 1981,” and that appellant-employees McEver (now 59), Davenport (now 58), and Smith (now 47),

> upon reaching 65 years of age and being gainfully employed at a full time job and/or having met the other requirements of this agreement, each employee is to receive proceeds of [the trust] ....

The “other requirements of this agreement” provided for the distribution of benefits if one of the employees died before reaching age 65 or became disabled, and for contingent beneficiaries.

Under OCGA § 53-12-3 (d):

> [i]f upon petition of the trustee, personal representative of the decedent’s estate, or any beneficiary, the court having jurisdiction over such trust,. . . finds that: ... (2) *The purpose of the trust has been fulfilled*.... the court, after due notice to all persons then having an interest in the trust, may order distribution of the trust property.

Claiming that the purpose of the trust was fulfilled since they were *453terminated upon the merger, the employees petitioned the court to distribute the trust assets. The trustee and Frances Legg objected.

Decided September 29, 1989.

*Roy N. Newman,*for appellant.

*Frank H. Jones,*for appellee.

The trial court properly concluded that the purpose of the executory trust had not been fulfilled, if for no other reason than the need for continuing payment to Frances Legg. The grant of summary judgment to the bank was required.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 This provision was enacted at Ga. L. 1988, p. 1939; Ga. L. 1989, p. 14.
Exhibit 10.3

**Confidential Treatment Requested



E-LOAN/zipRealty
                  Amendment Three to Marketing, Promotion, Distribution,
                  And Related Services Agreement

This Amendment Three ("Amendment") to the Marketing, Promotion,
Distribution, And Related Services Agreement dated April 15, 2002 (the
"Agreement"), by and between E-LOAN, Inc. and zipRealty, Inc., amends, modifies
and supplements the Agreement as set forth below. All terms of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly amended, modified or
supplemented herein.

1. Term
2. Compensation
3. Counterparts

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and
dated below.

|E- LOAN, INC.                                         | zipRealty, Inc.                                    
|----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|By:      __/s/    ___ Joseph  Kennedy________________ | By:      __/s/  Gary M. Beasley____________________
|Name: __Joseph J. Kennedy________                     | Name: __Gary M. Beasley________                    
|Title:   __Pres.________________                      | Title:   __EVP & CFO__________________             
|Date:   __12/22/03_________________                   | Date:   ___12/22/03_______________                 

E-LOAN - zipRealty
   Amendment Three to Marketing, Promotion, Distribution, and Related Services Agreement

**Confidential Treatment Requested

---
13 April 2016

132A16

#### State v. Calvin Sherwood Watts

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-358)

1. Allowed 04/13/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed 04/13/2016
No. 11-5254.

#### Eras-Machado *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4251 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4251

   To authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer certain excess 
      equipment to educational institutions and training schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 1994

  Mr. Klink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer certain excess 
      equipment to educational institutions and training schools.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN EXCESS PROPERTY TO EDUCATIONAL 
              INSTITUTIONS AND TRAINING SCHOOLS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 2535(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking out ``and'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
        subparagraph (G):
            ``(G) notwithstanding title II of the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481 et seq.) and 
        any other provision of law, authorize the transfer, on a 
        nonreimbursable basis, of any such property to any nonprofit 
        educational institution or training school whenever the program 
        proposed by such institution or school for the use of such 
        property will contribute materially to national defense; and''.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71814-71815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28455]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8962]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Man Ray--Human Equations: A Journey From Mathematics 
to Shakespeare'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Man Ray--Human Equations: A Journey from 
Mathematics to Shakespeare,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, from 
on or about February 7, 2015, until on or about May 10, 2015, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public

[[Page 71815]]

Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-28455 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4350

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make optional the provision

of non-emergency medical transportation services under the medicaid

program and to deny Federal financial participation for such services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1994

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr.

INHOFE, and Mr. MCCRERY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make

optional the provision of non-emergency medical transportation services under the medicaid program and to

deny Federal financial participation for such services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL

4 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES UNDER THE

5 MEDICAID PROGRAM.

6 (a) MAKING PROVISION OF SERVICES OPTIONAL.—

7 Section 1902(a)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42

8 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘plan,’’
2

•HR 4350 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘plan (except that nothing in this paragraph

2 shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to require

3 a State plan to ensure the provision of necessary non4 emergency transportation services to and from provid5 ers),’’.

6 (b) DENIAL OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPA7 TION.—Section 1903(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)),

8 as amended by section 13631(h) of the Omnibus Budget

9 Reconciliation Act of 1993, is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

11 (14);

12 (2) by striking the period at the end of para13 graph (15) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

14 (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the fol15 lowing new paragraph:

16 ‘‘(16) with respect to any amount expended for

17 non-emergency transportation services.’’.

18 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to

20 calendar quarters beginning on or after the date of the

21 enactment of this Act.

Æ
---

Chief Financial Officer EXHIBIT 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I, Susan Liu, chief financial officer of Hendrx Corp.
(Registrant) certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
(Report) of Registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007

________________________Susan Liu, Chief Financial
Officer

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-111: In Re ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JIjLK4k7da\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-111-in-re-zhejiang-crystal-optech-co-ltd-order-23-111-order-3-1-2023_2088088\/\">23-111: In Re ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-111-in-re-zhejiang-crystal-optech-co-ltd-order-23-111-order-3-1-2023_2088088\/embed\/#?secret=JIjLK4k7da\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-111: In Re ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"JIjLK4k7da\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: In Re ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-111 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30427

Conference Calendar

 

CHARLES T. BUTLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER; BURL CAIN; KATHY FONTENOT; RICHARD IEYOUB;

STATE OF LOUISIANA; All present and past Corrections Officials in

both their Official and Individual capacities,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:03-CV-624-B

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Before this court is Charles Butler’s (Louisiana prisoner 

# 209995) request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his

appeal of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for

failure to pay the filing fee. The district court denied Butler

leave to proceed IFP upon a finding that he had accumulated three

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 04-30427

-2-

Section 1915(g) provides that a prisoner may not proceed IFP

in a civil action or in an appeal of a judgment in a civil action

if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as

frivolous or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The

determination as to whether a prisoner is in “imminent danger”

must be made at the time the prisoner seeks to proceed with the

appeal or files a motion to proceed IFP. Baños v. O’Guin,

144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). 

 Butler fails to show that he is in “imminent danger” as

required under § 1915(g). Accordingly, his motion for IFP is

DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 11-5203.

#### Jackson *v.*Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-10.130 [Reserved]
008P16

#### State v. Teon Jamell Williams

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAP15-863)

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

4. Denied 03/03/2016
1225 19th Street NW Suite 450, Washington DC 20036 (202) 869-5210 www.NCLAlegal.org

July 24, 2023

The Honorable Kimberly A. Moore

Chair of the Special Committee of the 

Judicial Council for the Federal Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

VIA EMAIL

Re: In re Complaint No. 23-90015 (Complaint Against Circuit Judge Pauline Newman)

Dear Judge Moore:

I write to respectfully request an expeditious release, to NCLA, as Judge Newman’s counsel,

of a transcript of the proceedings held before the Special Committee on July 13, 2023, in the abovereferenced matter. 

As you know, the Special Committee and Judge Newman are scheduled to appear for a 

mediation session before the Hon. Thomas B. Griffith (ret.) on August 3, 2023. A transcript of the 

prior proceedings is necessary to properly prepare for this session. We understand that the Special 

Committee may not yet have had a chance to redact the transcript for public release, and we are not 

seeking to rush that process (though of course, we expect this matter to be handled expeditiously). At 

present, however, we are requesting an unredacted copy of the transcript which will be used to assist 

Judge Newman in preparing her legal defense. It goes without saying that in handling the unredacted 

transcript we are and will remain committed to abiding by the confidentiality requirements of the

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 360(a), Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial

Disability Proceedings, see, e.g., Rule 23, and the prior orders of this Committee, see, e.g., Special 

Committee Order of June 1, 2023 at 5-6.

I appreciate your prompt consideration of this request.

 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory Dolin,M.D.

Senior Litigation Counsel

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1444: C.A. CASYSO GMBH v. HEMOSONICS LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NF5wJVkb0Y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-20-1444-ca-casyso-gmbh-v-hemosonics-llc-rule-36-judgment-20-1444-rule_36_judgment-6-13-2022_1964150\/\">20-1444: C.A. CASYSO GMBH v. HEMOSONICS LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-20-1444-ca-casyso-gmbh-v-hemosonics-llc-rule-36-judgment-20-1444-rule_36_judgment-6-13-2022_1964150\/embed\/#?secret=NF5wJVkb0Y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1444: C.A. CASYSO GMBH v. HEMOSONICS LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"NF5wJVkb0Y\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: C.A. CASYSO GMBH v. HEMOSONICS LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1444 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. DANENBERG.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 751)

(389 SE2d 245)

Per curiam.

Respondent Robert A. Danenberg was convicted of murder and aggravated assault in August 1989. He thereafter filed a petition for voluntary surrender of his license to practice law. The State Bar of Georgia has indicated its willingness to accept the surrender of his license for violation of Standard 66 of Bar Rule 102. We adopt the recommendation of the State Bar and the Disciplinary Board that respondent’s petition for voluntary surrender of his license be accepted.

The name of Robert A. Danenberg is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys.

*All the Justices concur.*

*798Decided February 7, 1990.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.