In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: May 14, 2024

S23Y0622. IN THE MATTER OF JAMES W. DAVIS, III.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of 

Discipline, recommending the disbarment of James W. Davis, III,

1

(State Bar No. 283824) for his role in intercepting a multi-milliondollar payment from an insurance company to its policy holder. As 

reflected in the record, Davis acknowledged service of the State 

Bar’s Notice of Discipline for Disbarment (“Notice of Discipline”) on 

March 27, 2023, but failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, 

Davis is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, 

and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be 

1 Davis was admitted to the State Bar in 1997 and was authorized to 

practice law at the time of the conduct at issue, but has since become an 

inactive member of the State Bar.
2

determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).2 

The facts, as deemed admitted by Davis’s default,3 are as 

follows.

4 In December 2018, Coface North America Insurance 

Company (the “Insurer”), a company specializing in commercial 

trade credit insurance, agreed to pay one of its policyholders a claimrelated payment in the amount of $3,093,085.50. On December 18, 

2018, the Insurer requested payment instructions from the 

policyholder’s insurance broker and received payment instructions 

via email from a policyholder representative, which included wire 

transfer information for a bank account in the name of the 

policyholder at Citibank, N.A. On December 19, 2018, an unknown 

individual purporting to be the same policyholder representative

2 This rule provides that, “[u]nless the Notice of Discipline is rejected by 

the respondent as provided in Rule 4-208.3, (1) the respondent shall be in 

default; (2) the respondent shall have no right to any evidentiary hearing; and 

(3) the respondent shall be subject to such discipline and further proceedings 

as may be determined by the Supreme Court of Georgia.”

3 See In the Matter of Head, 317 Ga. 512, 512 (893 SE2d 706) (2023) 

(noting that, because the respondent attorney failed to file a Notice of 

Rejection, the underlying facts were “deemed admitted by [his] default”).

4 The record includes the State Bar’s Notice of Discipline, a 

memorandum of grievance issued by the State Bar to Davis, and orders filed 

in a lawsuit against Davis and others in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Georgia.
3

sent an email to the Insurer, instructing the Insurer to disregard the 

payment instructions transmitted the previous day and to instead 

wire the funds to a bank account held by the policyholder’s attorney. 

Attached to the email was a letter of authorization and declaration 

that included new wiring instructions to a Wells Fargo account in 

the name of J. Davis – Attorney at Law, LLC IOLTA (“Davis’s 

IOLTA”). On December 21, 2018, the Insurer wired $3,093,085.50 

to Davis’s IOLTA account. 

On December 31, 2018, the Insurer was informed that its 

emails with the policyholder had been compromised and that the 

funds at issue were never received by the policyholder. The Insurer 

reported the incident to Citibank and the FBI, and on January 3, 

2019, counsel for the Insurer sent a “cease and desist” letter to Davis 

demanding return of the funds. The Insurer was subsequently 

notified that Wells Fargo credited $2,540,319.30 from Davis’s 

IOLTA account to the Insurer, which left $552,755.20 unaccounted

for by Davis. Additionally, the payment from Davis’s IOLTA 

account to the Insurer included $3,500.00 belonging to clients of 
4

Davis, of which Davis was aware. 

Davis initially denied any knowledge of or participation in the 

misappropriation of these funds and claimed that he was also a 

victim in this scheme. However, the factual allegations of the Notice 

of Discipline—which Davis has admitted by virtue of his default—

state that Davis was “a knowing and intentional participant in the 

interception and theft of the [funds]” and “knowingly used his 

attorney trust account to carry out the interception and theft of the 

[funds].”5

The State Disciplinary Board’s (the “Board”) memorandum of 

grievance, which is also included in the record, demonstrates that 

the Board initiated a grievance against Davis based upon 

information suggesting that Davis “may have violated one or more 

of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.” See Bar Rule 4-203 

(2). Specifically, the Board learned that, on January 14, 2019, the 

Insurer filed a lawsuit against Davis and numerous “John Does” in 

5 The record does not reflect whether Davis was ever charged with any 

crimes arising from this conduct.
5

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 

(the “federal case”), raising claims for conversion, RICO, common 

law fraud, and civil conspiracy, among others. 

On June 21, 2019, the district court issued an order in the 

federal case addressing several motions filed by the parties, 

including Davis’s motion to dismiss and the Insurer’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction. The district court granted the Insurer’s 

request for injunctive relief and partly granted Davis’s motion to 

dismiss, but only as to certain of the Insurer’s claims. In so ruling, 

the district court observed that, in litigating the federal case, Davis 

had explicitly acknowledged and admitted to the following: (1) “in 

his role as an attorney,” Davis “serves as a paymaster” for certain 

entities, and it was in this role as paymaster that he came to acquire 

the funds at issue from the Insurer; (2) “[t]he first transfer of 

$3,093,085.50 was wired to Mr. Davis’s IOLTA [a]ccount on 

December 21, 2018”; (3) Davis was “informed by Citibank that the 

transfer was the result of false wiring instructions”; (4) Wells Fargo 

returned funds in the amount of $2,540,319.30 to the Insurer; (5) 
6

“[f]unds in the amount of $552,766.20 were paid out to Mr. Davis as 

his fee for services rendered as paymaster for what he believed was 

a legitimate transaction” with the Insurer; (6) Davis “used his fee 

monies to pay outstanding bills/debts”; and (7) Davis’s “involvement 

in the subject transaction was in his role as an attorney with the law 

firm J. Davis, Attorney at Law, LLC.” The district court held that 

Davis’s “version of the facts” set forth above was “a binding judicial 

admission.” The record reflects that the Insurer and Davis later 

settled the federal case, and the case was administratively closed in 

October 2019. 

Having reviewed the record and considered the facts deemed 

admitted by Davis’s default, the State Disciplinary Board found 

probable cause to believe that Davis violated Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) 

(a)6, and 8.4 (a) (4). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 

6 Based on the underlying facts, it does not appear that Davis violated 

Rule 1.15 (II) (a), which provides that 

[e]very lawyer who practices law in Georgia, whether said lawyer 

practices as a sole practitioner, or as a member of a firm, 

association, or professional corporation, and who receives money 

or property on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity, 
7

1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. 

As aggravating factors, the Board considered Davis’s 

substantial experience in the practice of law and, as a mitigating 

factor, his absence of prior disciplinary history. The Board advised 

that Standard 4.11 of the American Bar Association’s Annotated 

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions was applicable to Davis’s 

violations of Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II), which provides that 

disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 

converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a 

client. See ABA Standards for Imposing Sanction 4.11. See also In 

the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996) (stating 

that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for guidance in 

determining appropriate disciplinary sanction). The Board 

shall maintain or have available one or more trust accounts as 

required by these Rules. All funds held by a lawyer for a client and 

all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity shall be 

deposited in and administered from a trust account.

More likely, Davis violated Rule 1.15 (II) (b), which provides, in pertinent part, 

that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal 

use of the lawyer maintaining the account except earned lawyer’s fees debited 

against the account of a specific client and recorded as such.” This discrepancy

ultimately has no bearing on the recommended discipline in this case. 
8

concluded that Davis “knowingly converted the property of his 

clients when he included client funds from his trust account to make 

partial reimbursement of the funds at issue.” 

The Board further advised that Standard 5.11 (b) of the ABA 

Standards for Imposing Sanctions was applicable to Davis’s 

violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4), which provides that disbarment is 

generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that 

seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. See 

ABA Standards for Imposing Sanction 5.11 (b). See also In the 

Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. at 653. The Board concluded that 

“[t]hrough his knowing and intentional participation in the 

interception and theft of the [funds at issue], [Davis] engaged in 

intentional conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on [Davis’s] 

fitness to practice.”

Having reviewed the record and considered Davis’s factual 

admissions herein, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate 
9

sanction in this disciplinary matter and is consistent with similar 

cases in which an attorney utilized fraud to misappropriate funds 

and defaulted during the disciplinary process. See, e.g., In the 

Matter of Fagan, 314 Ga. 208, 213 (876 SE2d 242) (2022) (disbarring 

attorney who engaged in professional misconduct involving 

dishonesty and fraud, misappropriated client funds, and failed to 

respond to the formal complaint); In the Matter of Cheatham, 304

Ga. 645, 646 (820 SE2d 668) (2018) (disbarring attorney who 

converted client funds to his own use and failed to respond to 

disciplinary authorities); In the Matter of Mathis, 297 Ga. 867, 868 

(778 SE2d 793) (2015) (disbarring attorney who misappropriated 

client funds that had been wired to him in advance of a real estate 

closing and failed to respond to disciplinary authorities). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of James W. Davis, 

III be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law 

in the State of Georgia. Davis is reminded of his duties pursuant to 

Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.