In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: August 24, 2021

S21Y1075. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM LESLIE KIRBY III.

PER CURIAM.

This is the fourth appearance of this disciplinary matter before 

us, following the rejection of three previous petitions for voluntary 

discipline. See In the Matter of Kirby, 304 Ga. 628 (820 SE2d 729) 

(2018) (“Kirby I”); In the Matter of Kirby, 307 Ga. 316 (835 SE2d 637) 

(2019) (“Kirby II”); In the Matter of Kirby, 309 Ga. 826 (848 SE2d 

429) (2020) (“Kirby III”). In this fourth petition, William Leslie 

Kirby III (State Bar No. 220475) again seeks voluntary discipline in 

connection with his admitted misconduct in four separate State Bar 

matters, constituting violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 of the 

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). 

We first rejected the proposed imposition of a State Disciplinary 

Review Board reprimand, then rejected a proposed 30-day 
2

suspension, and finally rejected a four-month suspension, 

concluding that each proposed sanction was insufficient given the 

gravity of Kirby’s pattern of misconduct. In the current petition, 

Kirby requests the imposition of a six-month suspension. The 

Special Master, who recommended acceptance of each of the three 

prior petitions, recommends acceptance of this petition as well, with 

the imposition of a six-month suspension. As explained more below, 

we accept the six-month suspension Kirby requests and the Special 

Master recommends.

Regarding the facts of the underlying matters and the 

circumstances surrounding Kirby’s misconduct, we have previously 

recounted that:

“With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket 

(“SDBD”) No. 6926, Kirby admits that he was retained in 

2014 to represent a client in a child-support modification 

action and was paid $375. He filed the modification 

action, albeit later than he promised. When a motion for 

contempt was filed against his client, Kirby failed to 

appear at a 2016 hearing on the motion. The client was 

held in contempt for failing to pay child support and had 

income deduction orders entered against her. Kirby failed 

to respond to the client’s multiple requests for 

information and failed to perform necessary work on the 
3

matter. Kirby admits that by this behavior he violated 

Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional 

Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

With regard to SDBD No. 6977, Kirby admits that a client 

retained him in 2012 to defend her against criminal 

charges. After the client was convicted, Kirby advised her 

to seek appointed counsel for the appeal but failed to file 

a notice of withdrawal even though he had no plans to 

represent her. Although Kirby gave a copy of his file to 

the client’s family, he failed to respond to new counsel’s 

request for a copy of his file after counsel was appointed 

in July 2015. New counsel filed a motion in March 2016 

to compel Kirby to produce his file, but Kirby failed to 

respond. Kirby admits that by his conduct he violated 

Rules 1.4 and 1.16.

With regard to SDBD No. 6978, Kirby admits that in 

February 2014 he was retained to represent a client in 

divorce proceedings. After a March 2015 mediation, the 

client refused to sign a negotiated agreement and 

informed Kirby that he wished to retain new counsel. 

Kirby gave the client a copy of his file and told the client 

that he was withdrawing. But he failed to file a notice of 

withdrawal with the court and failed to communicate 

with the client. As a result of Kirby’s failure to withdraw 

properly, the client was unable to retain another attorney. 

Kirby admits that by this conduct he violated Rules 1.4 

and 1.16.

Finally, with regard to SDBD No. 6979, Kirby admits that 

in 2011 a client hired him to file an uncontested divorce 

and paid him a $700 retainer. Although Kirby filed the 

petition for divorce in January 2012, he stopped 

communicating with the client and did not perform any 
4

additional work on the case until July 2013, when the 

parties negotiated and signed an agreement. Kirby 

prepared a final judgment and decree but did not file it 

with the court because the court required the parties to 

attend a seminar for divorcing parents. Although Kirby 

informed the client of this requirement, the client did not 

attend the seminar. In February 2016, the client notified 

Kirby that he was terminating Kirby’s services. Kirby 

failed to send the client his file, although he had promised 

to do so, and he did not properly withdraw from the 

representation. Kirby failed thereafter to respond to the 

client’s inquiries and requests for a refund. Kirby admits 

that this conduct amounted to violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 

1.4, and 1.16.

* * *

[In connection w]ith his petition for voluntary discipline, 

Kirby submitted under seal the March 2018 report of a 

psychologist who performed [an] evaluation and found 

Kirby to be fit to practice law. Generally speaking, the 

psychologist’s report discusses Kirby’s statements 

regarding particular stress he was under, including the 

2012 death of his father, an attorney with whom he 

shared office space, and the 2016 death of his mother. The 

psychologist noted various challenges Kirby faced in 

managing his practice and his stress. The psychologist 

made specific mental health recommendations but also 

expressed a concern about whether Kirby would follow 

through with his stated plans for personal and 

professional improvement. Kirby’s petition for voluntary 

discipline provides no indication that he is following the 

psychologist’s recommendations.”
5

Kirby II, 307 Ga. at 317-318 (quoting Kirby I, 304 Ga. at 628-630). 

As to Kirby’s second petition, we noted:

“The facts remain largely the same, although Kirby has 

included greater detail, including highlighting some of 

the difficulties he faced in representing the clients in 

these matters. In addition, he filed, under seal, a 

February 2019 letter from a licensed psychologist, 

confirming that Kirby ‘is currently under [his] care,’ and 

a personal statement by Kirby, in which he seeks to more 

fully explain the circumstances that led to these 

disciplinary matters. Kirby states that he has changed 

the scope and focus of his practice and that words cannot 

express the disappointment he has had in himself for his 

poor decision making, but that he is thankful that this 

process has led him to seek therapy and to gain some 

peace with the death of his parents.”

Kirby III, 309 Ga. at 828-829 (quoting Kirby II, 307 Ga. at 318-319).

In considering Kirby’s third petition, in which he again 

requested the imposition of a State Disciplinary Review Board 

reprimand, but in which he also stated that he was “willing to 

accept” a suspension of up to four months, we noted that, “[w]hile all 

indicators reflect that Kirby has taken the necessary steps to 

address the mental health and practice management problems that 

contributed to his misconduct,” we were troubled by Kirby’s attempt 
6

to seek discipline already rejected by this Court. Kirby III, 309 Ga. 

at 830. Furthermore, we concluded that the four-month suspension

that Kirby declared himself “willing to accept” was insufficient, as 

“[f]ar more commonly, cases involving multiple violations of similar 

rules committed in connection with multiple client matters have 

yielded suspensions of at least six months in length.” Id. 

Having considered the record, and making note that Kirby has 

abandoned his attempt to seek discipline already rejected by this 

Court, we agree that a six-month suspension is the appropriate 

sanction in this matter. See, e.g., In the Matter of Johnson, 303 Ga. 

795, 799-800 (815 SE2d 55) (2018) (six-month suspension for 

violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.16 (d), and 5.5 (a) in 

connection with seven client matters); In the Matter of Brantley, 299 

Ga. 732, 735 (791 SE2d 783) (2016) (180-day suspension with 

conditions for reinstatement for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (c) 

(1), 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), 8.1, and 9.3 in connection with five disciplinary 

matters); In the Matter of Jones, 292 Ga. 310, 310-311 (736 SE2d 

432) (2013) (six-month additional suspension with conditions for 
7

reinstatement for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 3.5 (c) in 

connection with three client matters, where attorney had prior 

disciplinary history but expressed remorse and, as conditions of 

reinstatement, would take steps to treat psychological issues and 

make restitution); In the Matter of Calomeni, 293 Ga. 673, 673 (748

SE2d 926) (2013) (six-month suspension for violations of Rules 1.2, 

1.15 (I), and 5.3 (d) in connection with two client matters); In the 

Matter of Huggins, 291 Ga. 92, 93 (727 SE2d 500) (2012) (six-month 

suspension with conditions for reinstatement for violations of Rules 

1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16, and 9.3 in connection with five client 

matters).

Accordingly, we hereby order that Kirby be suspended from the 

practice of law in this State for six months. Because there are no 

conditions on Kirby’s reinstatement other than the passage of time, 

there is no need for him to take any action either through the State 

Bar or through this Court to effectuate his return to the practice of 

law. Instead, the suspension based on this opinion will take effect as 

of the date this opinion is issued and will expire by its own terms six
8

months later. Kirby is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 

4-219 (b).

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Six-month 

suspension. All the Justices concur.