In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: May 3, 2022

S22Y0748. IN THE MATTER OF REGINALD J. LEWIS.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for 

voluntary discipline filed by respondent Reginald J. Lewis (State 

Bar No. 451251) before the issuance of a Formal Complaint. See Bar 

Rule 4-227 (b). In his petition, Lewis, who has been a member of the 

State Bar of Georgia since 2002, agrees to accept the imposition of a 

six-month suspension as discipline for his admitted violations, in 

three separate client matters, of the Georgia Rules of Professional 

Conduct (“GRPC”) found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar has 

responded to Lewis’s petition, recommending that the Court accept 

the discipline proposed, and we agree to do so. 

With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) 

Number 7522, Lewis admits that on August 22, 2018, a client hired
2

the law firm he worked for to represent her in connection with a 

personal injury case; that the case was assigned to Lewis in January 

2019, but he did not perform any work on the case or communicate 

with the client; that, in September 2019, he notified the client by 

letter that he was no longer representing her; and that the client 

then requested her client file, but he failed to return it. By these 

actions, Lewis admits that he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 (d) of 

the GRPC.

With regard to SDBD No. 7523, Lewis admits that in January 

2016 another client hired the law firm Lewis worked for to represent 

her in a personal injury matter; that her case was assigned to Lewis; 

that on May 8, 2017, he filed a statement of claim on behalf of that 

client in the Magistrate Court of Fulton County; that the parties 

consented to transferring the case to the State Court of Fulton 

County; that, after the transfer, he performed no additional work on 

the client’s case and failed to communicate with her; and that in July 

2018, he filed a dismissal without prejudice of the client’s case, but 
3

did not advise the client that he had done so. Lewis admits that in 

this matter, he violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of the GRPC.

Finally, with regard to SDBD No. 7524, Lewis admits that a 

third client retained him to represent her in connection with a 

personal injury matter; that on August 22, 2014, he filed a lawsuit 

on that client’s behalf; that when the case was put on a calendar call 

for April 26, 2017, he failed to appear and the court therefore 

dismissed the case without prejudice; that he did not notify the 

client of the dismissal; that he attempted to file a renewal action, 

but missed the deadline by a week; that he did not inform the client 

of the error; that in January 2018, the defendant filed a motion to 

dismiss the renewal action as untimely; that he neither informed the 

client of the motion, nor responded to it; and that, although the trial 

court granted the motion in April 2018, he failed to inform the client 

about the dismissal of her action. Lewis admits that in this matter, 

he violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 of the GRPC.
4

Although Lewis acknowledges that the maximum penalty for a 

single violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 is disbarment,1 he asserts

in mitigation that he has no prior disciplinary record; that he lacked 

a dishonest or selfish motive; that he has been cooperative during 

these disciplinary proceedings; and that he is remorseful. See ABA 

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992), Standard 9.32 (a), 

(b), (e), and (l). Lewis admits no factors in aggravation of discipline

and requests that this Court impose a six-month suspension for his 

multiple violations of the GRPC. 

In 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.
5

Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493 (277 SE2d 36) (1981); and that 

under the ABA Standards, which this Court has stated are 

instructive in considering discipline, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 

Ga. 652 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), a suspension is generally 

appropriate when, as here, a lawyer knowingly fails to perform 

services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client 

or when a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury 

or potential injury to a client. See ABA Standard 4.42. The Bar 

accepts all of the mitigating factors identified by Lewis, but asserts 

in aggravation that Lewis committed multiple offenses, that he 

engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and that he has substantial 

experience in the practice of law. See ABA Standard 9.22 (c), (d), and 

(i). Nevertheless, the Bar urges this Court to accept Lewis’s petition 

and impose a six-month suspension, asserting that similar cases 

have resulted in similar discipline. See In the Matter of Kirby, 312 

Ga. 341 (862 SE2d 550) (2021) (six-month suspension for attorney 

who violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in four separate matters); 

In the Matter of Johnson, 303 Ga. 795 (815 SE2d 55) (2018) (six-
6

month suspension for attorney who violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15 

(I), 1.16 (d), and 5.5 in seven separate matters); In the Matter of 

Huggins, 291 Ga. 92 (727 SE2d 500) (2012) (six-month suspension 

with conditions for attorney who violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I) and 

(II), 1.16, and 9.3 in connection with five client matters); and In the 

Matter of Graziano, 299 Ga. 7 (785 SE2d 537) (2016) (six-month 

suspension with conditions for attorney who violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 

and 1.16).

We have reviewed the record and, in light of the mitigating 

factors present in this case, including particularly the absence of any 

prior disciplinary history, we agree that a six-month suspension is 

an appropriate sanction for Lewis’s violations. Accordingly, we 

hereby order that Lewis be suspended from the practice of law in 

this State for six months.2 Because there are no conditions on 

Lewis’s reinstatement other than the passage of time, there is no 

 

2 During the term of the suspension, we urge Lewis to utilize the State 

Bar’s Law Practice Management Program and other resources designed to 

prevent a future failure to meet the professional obligations of a Georgia 

lawyer.
7

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 

months later. Lewis is reminded of his duties pursuant Bar Rule 4-

219 (b).

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Six-month 

suspension. All the Justices concur.