FINAL C OPY

295 Ga. 456
S14Y081 2, S14Y08 13, S14Y0 814. IN THE MATTER OF L. NICOLE

HAMILT ON (thre e cas es).
PER CURIAM. Thesediscipli

nary m atter s are be fore the Court on th e re po rt and
recom menda tion of special master Daniel B. Snip es who recommends that this Court accept Re spondent L. Nicole Hami lton’s (State Bar No . 320909) pe tition for voluntary d iscipline, as amended, and impose as discipl ine in these thr ee
cases a public reprimand wi th condit ion s for her admitted violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 5 .5 (a), and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,
see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), even thou gh the maximum san ction for a viola tion of Rules 1.3 and 5. 5 (a) is di sbarm ent. The State Bar did n ot objec t to Ham ilton’s petition and neither party sought revie w by the Review Panel. The special master found , based on the admiss ions made in Ham i lton’s consolidat edpetitio n for vol u ntary discipline, that Hamilton (who appare ntly
was formerly known as Nicole King, and wh o is now kn own as Nicole Brantl ey) has been a member of the State Bar since 20 02. With regard to the fi rst ma tter,2

Hami lton admit tedly f ailed t o appea

r at a s entenc ing hearing inthe United States District Court for t he Southern District of Georgia, failed to c ommunicate with herclient , and

failed to pro mptly respond t o the Notice of Investigation, thereb y violati ng Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1. 16 (d) and 9. 3. With r egard t o the se cond ma tter, Hami lton violate d Rule 9. 3 by fai ling to prom ptly res pond to a N otice o f Investiga tion issued w ith rega

rd to an und erlyi ng comp laint that involv edpoor
comm un icati on be tween Hamilton and th e client. Finally, in th e third case, Hami lton continued to prac tice l aw aft er rec eiving a n admi nistrative suspension for not payi ng bar du es and f

ailed t o comm

unicat e with c lients c oncerni ng pendingcourt a

ppeara nces, thereb y viola

ting Rule s 1.4 and 5.5 (a). In additi on, Hami lton admitted that she has a p rior discip linary histo ry consistin g of (1) an Investiga tive Panel r eprim and issue d on Septe mber 15, 2006 , (2) two for mal lette rs of admonition issued on s eparate disciplin ary matter s on Novem ber 9, 2010, and (3) another Investigati ve P anel R eprim and issue d on Dec embe r 10, 2010. Each of these prior discip l inary matters involves, in large part, Hami lton’s fa ilure to adequa tely c ommu

nicate with her client s. At an evid entiar

y hea ring on m itigati on issues, Hamilton tes tified und er oath conce rning the circum stance s surrounding and giving rise

to the admitted3

violati ons. The spe cial master credit ed Ham ilton’s c andid an d forthright testimony conce rning how adversit y in her person al life had negativ ely affected herprofessi onal re sponsibili ties. He noted that Hamilt on accepted responsibility for the Rul e viola

tions and has tak en corre ctive s teps to pr event f uture viol ations byimple menti ng a bet

ter internal ca

lendar system

within her office

and engagin g in a professi onal relationship wi th a m ore experi enced attorne y who
can act a s a mentor and

resource. The spe cial master noted tha t both thecurrent
c ases and prior unrelat ed ca ses invol ved condu ct that occurre d betwe en 2006 and 2010 and found t

hat the y all involved a

lack of understa nding of th e responsibility of an attorney to com munic ate w ith her c lient

and thecourts a

nd
a lack of understa nding as t o when the

“attorney clientrelationship” is created and term inated
. In all in stance s, the s pecial mas ter found t hat thepoor
comm unication was exacerbat ed b y either Hamilton’s h ealth issues or other personal adv ersity. Accordingly, the spe cial master found in m itigati on that H amil ton acceptedresponsib ility f

or the violations and expressed genuineremor se about them, that she has ta

ken ac tions to p revent futu re violation s, and that her violati ons were the result

of negligence rather t han wilful in tent. He, therefore,4

recommended that the

Court ac cept H amil ton’s petition for volu ntary discipli ne,
as amended, and impose on h er a public repri mand with the addit ional condition s that Hamilton be re quired to participate in the Sta te Bar of Georgia ’s Law Practice Management Prog ram by havin g a

management consultation , that she agree to follow any a nd all re comm endati ons of the report issued a fter the consulta tion , that she

agree to waive

confide ntialit

y of thereport a

nd any
r ecom mend ations, that she

also berequire d to parti cipate in the St ate B ar of Georgia ’s Lawy ers Assi stance Program by com pleting a n evalua tion, tha t she agree to follow

any a nd all re comm endati ons from the eva luation, and tha

t she agree to a limited waive r of confi dentia lity to ensure c omple tion of th e prog ram. Neither party requested r eview by the R eview Panel, and so both have waiv ed the right to file exceptions with this C ourt. After thorough review o f the re cord in th is case , we di sagree with the special master that a

public repri mand with condit ions is an appropria te leve l of discipline for Hamilton’s viola tions . Indee d, despi te the existe nce of t he mitiga ting factor s found by

the speci al ma ster, w e find tha t Ham ilton’s pa st disciplinary

hi story; her pattern of

poor communication with clients; and her sheer volu me of Rule violati ons for p oor communication with clients even af ter5

having face d discipl ine for si mila r problem s in the pa st, remain signi ficant aggrava ting fac t ors. In li ght of therecord as a wh ole, w e reje ct Ha milton ’s petition fo r volunt ary discipline. Petitio n for volunta

ry disc ipline r ejec ted. A ll the Ju stice s concur .

Decid ed June 3 0, 2014. Petition fo r volunt ary discipline. Savage & Turne r, Bre nt J. Sa

vage , for Ha

milton
. Paula J. Frederick, Ge neral Counsel Sta t e Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant Gener al Counsel State Bar , for State Bar of Geo rgia.