In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: January 17, 2024

S24Y0071, S24Y0072, S24Y0073. IN THE MATTER OF R. DALE 

PERRY.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on the report 

and recommendation of Special Master Patrick H. Head, who 

recommends disbarring respondent R. Dale Perry (State Bar No. 

572785), for his violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.16, and 3.2 of 

the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar 

Rule 4-102 (d), in three client matters. The maximum sanction for a 

single violation of Rules 1.3 or 1.15 (I) is disbarment, while the 

maximum sanction for a single violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16, or 3.2 is 

a public reprimand. Because Perry has previously received a formal 

letter of admonition from the Bar and a six-month suspension from 

this Court, see In the Matter of Perry, 277 Ga. 347 (589 SE2d 65) 

(2003), the instant disciplinary matters “in and of [themselves]
2

constitute discretionary grounds for suspension or disbarment.” Bar 

Rule 4-103. Despite being personally served with the formal 

complaint, Perry, who has been a member of the State Bar of 

Georgia since 1981, failed to timely answer or otherwise respond, 

and the Special Master therefore found him to be in default such 

that the factual allegations and the disciplinary violations charged 

in the formal complaints were deemed admitted. See Bar Rule 4-212 

(a). After assessing Perry’s conduct in the context of the American 

Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA 

Standards”), see 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 

Special Master recommends that Perry be disbarred from the 

practice of law. Perry did not petition for review by the Review Board

or file exceptions in this Court.1 Having carefully reviewed the 

1 Before these matters were docketed in this Court, Perry filed a late

“response” to the Special Master’s report and recommendation attempting to 

offer mitigating information. We do not consider this information because

Perry did not file it within the 30-day deadline for filing exceptions to the 
3

record, we agree that Perry’s abandonment of his clients warrants 

his disbarment.

The facts, as alleged in the formal complaints and as deemed 

admitted by Perry’s default, show that in State Disciplinary Board 

Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7625, Perry was hired to represent a client in 

a divorce in July 2020, but he failed to consult with the client about 

case strategy and objectives, to keep him informed about the status 

of the case, or to respond to his inquiries. Perry failed to respond to 

discovery requests and the motion to compel filed by the opposing 

Special Master’s report and seeking review by the Review Board and did not 

otherwise seek or obtain an extension of time to make a late filing, nor did he 

file these exceptions in this Court after the record was filed here. See Bar Rule 

4-214 (c) (providing that the Clerk of the State Disciplinary Boards shall file 

the disciplinary record in this Court unless a party requests review by the 

Review Board and files exceptions to the Special Master’s report within 30 days 

of the date that report is filed); Bar Rule 4-218 (providing that after a 

disciplinary record is filed in this Court, any exceptions to a report of the 

Special Master or Review Board “shall be filed with the Court within 30 days 

of the date that the record is filed with the Court and a copy served upon the 

opposing party”). See also, e.g., In the Matter of Giallanza, 287 Ga. 257, 257 

(695 SE2d 254) (2010) (“the procedural rules are clear and because [the] 

exceptions are untimely, this Court declines to consider them”); In the Matter 

of Ellison, 280 Ga. 303 (627 SE2d 25) (2006) (finding that attorney’s exceptions 

to the review panel’s report were “untimely and without merit”); In the Matter 

of Frantz, 271 Ga. 529, 530 (520 SE2d 686) (1999) (attorney’s “written

exceptions to the Review Panel’s findings were untimely under [former] Bar 

Rule 4-219 (a), and have not been considered by this Court”).
4

party and failed to tell the client about the motion to compel and the 

hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the motion to compel 

and assessed sanctions against Perry and the client. When the client 

terminated the representation, Perry failed properly to withdraw or 

timely to return the client’s file. In SDBD No. 7626, Perry was hired 

to represent a client in a divorce in September 2020, but for one year, 

Perry failed to consult with the client about his objectives, to keep 

him informed about the status of the case, to respond to his requests 

for information, and to withdraw timely after the client terminated 

the representation.

In SDBD No. 7658, Perry was hired to represent a client in a 

divorce in August 2021, for which he received a $6,000 retainer. 

Perry stopped communicating with the client and did not respond to 

the client’s numerous attempts to contact him. In October 2021, the 

client was able to meet with Perry to execute an affidavit, but he did 

not hear from Perry after that meeting. The client retained new 

counsel in November 2021 and learned that a motion to compel had 

been filed against him for failure to respond to discovery requests. 
5

Perry never informed the client about the discovery requests or the 

motion to compel and failed to respond properly to the motion. Perry 

failed to respond to the client’s requests for an accounting of the 

retainer and for the return of any unearned portion. He also failed 

to respond to the petition for fee arbitration that the client filed with 

the Fee Arbitration Panel of the State Bar. The arbitrators awarded 

the client $6,000, finding that Perry abandoned the client and that 

the client received no value from Perry’s legal services. In December 

2022, Perry satisfied the arbitrators’ award by refunding $6,000 to 

the client. The client believes that he suffered injury because Perry’s 

lack of attention resulted in him receiving a less favorable division 

of assets in the divorce.

Based on his factual findings, the Special Master concluded 

that in all three matters, Perry violated Rule 1.32 by abandoning his 

clients and by failing to use reasonable diligence and promptness, 

2 Rule 1.3 provides that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence 

and promptness in representing a client,” and defines “reasonable diligence” to 

mean that “a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of the client 

in effect willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter entrusted to the 

lawyer.”
6

which was detrimental to them, and Rule 1.4 (a)3 by failing to 

consult with the clients about their objectives and how those were to 

be obtained, to keep the clients informed about the status of their 

cases, to comply with reasonable requests for information, and to 

inform the clients about discovery requests and motions to compel. 

The Special Master concluded that Perry violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c)4

in SDBD No. 7658 because Perry did not respond to the client’s 

request for an accounting of the retainer and Perry did not return 

the funds until December 2022, when he paid the arbitration award. 

The Special Master concluded that in all three matters Perry 

3 Rule 1.4 (a) provides in relevant part that

(a) A lawyer shall:

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by 

which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 

matter; [and]

(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for 

information[.]

4 Rule 1.15 (I) (c) provides in relevant part that “[u]pon receiving funds . 

. . in which a client . . . has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client 

. . . . Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by 

agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client . . . any 

funds or other property that the client . . . is entitled to receive and, upon 

request by the client . . . , shall promptly render a full accounting regarding 

such property.”
7

violated Rule 1.16 (d)5 by failing to return immediately the clients’ 

files upon being terminated, and in SDBD No. 7658, by failing to 

refund the unearned portion of the retainer. Finally, the Special 

Master concluded that Perry violated Rule 3.26 by failing to make 

reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation in SDBD Nos. 7625 and 

7626 because he failed to consult the clients, to notify them about 

discovery requests, or to conduct discovery, and his dilatory actions 

resulted in opposing counsel filing a motion to compel in SDBD No. 

7625.

The Special Master then applied the framework set out in the 

ABA Standards to consider (1) the duty violated; (2) the lawyer’s 

mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s 

misconduct; and (4) applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. 

5 Rule 1.16 (d) provides in relevant part that “[u]pon termination of 

representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 

to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . surrendering papers and property to 

which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has 

not been earned.”

6 Rule 3.2 provides that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 

expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”
8

The Special Master found that Perry violated his duty of diligence 

to his clients, and his duty to the legal system to expedite litigation. 

See ABA Standards 4.41 (disbarment generally appropriate when 

lawyer abandons the practice, knowingly fails to perform services, 

or engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury to client); 6.2 

(providing appropriate sanctions for lawyer’s violation of duties 

owed to legal system, including failure to expedite litigation). The 

Special Master found that Perry had abandoned each of his clients, 

which indicated a pattern of neglect. The Special Master found that 

Perry’s misconduct resulted in actual injury to the client in SDBD 

No. 7658 and potential serious injury to the clients in SDBD Nos. 

7625 and 7626.

In aggravation, the Special Master found that Perry had 

substantial experience in the practice of law; that he exhibited a 

pattern of misconduct; that he had not acknowledged the wrongful 

nature of his conduct; and that he had a prior disciplinary history. 

See ABA Standard 9.22 (a), (c), (g), (i). In mitigation, the Special 

Master found that Perry did not have a dishonest or selfish motive; 
9

“he just ignored or abandoned his client[s].” See ABA Standard 9.32 

(b). The Special Master found that the Bar indicated in the formal 

complaints that Perry may have had some health issues, but they 

were not mitigating because the Special Master received no 

information supporting that suggestion. The Special Master found 

that while Perry made restitution to the client in SDBD No. 7658, 

he did not do so until after the client obtained an arbitration award, 

so restitution was not mitigating. See generally ABA Standards 9.32 

(d) and (h).

Finally, the Special Master concluded that Perry failed to 

respond to the formal complaints, such that he was in default and 

should be disbarred based on the violations he was deemed to have 

admitted. The Special Master noted that this Court has previously 

disbarred attorneys in matters where they abandoned or neglected 

client matters and failed to respond to disciplinary proceedings

pertaining to similar rules violations. See In the Matter of Larson, 

305 Ga. 522 (826 SE2d 99) (2019) (disbarring attorney found in 

default for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 
10

9.3 by abandoning four criminal clients); In the Matter of Moore, 303 

Ga. 296 (811 SE2d 343) (2018) (disbarring attorney found in default 

for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2 

by abandoning six domestic relations clients); In the Matter of 

Shinall, 285 Ga. 31 (673 SE2d 233) (2009) (disbarring attorney

found in default for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 9.3 by

abandoning a client, which resulted in opposing counsel obtaining a 

default judgment against the client).

Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the 

appropriate sanction, and that disbarment is consistent with prior 

cases in which an attorney admitted, by virtue of default, to 

violating similar provisions of the GRPC that carry disbarment as a 

sanction and failed to participate fully in the disciplinary process.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of R. Dale Perry be 

removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the 

State of Georgia. Perry is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar 

Rule 4-219 (b).
11

Disbarred. All the Justices concur, except LaGrua, J., who

dissents.
12

LAGRUA, Justice, dissenting. 

The most serious sanction this Court can impose in a bar 

discipline matter is disbarment, and this sanction is nearly always 

imposed when a lawyer fails to respond to formal disciplinary 

proceedings. In this case, Perry failed to timely answer or otherwise

respond to the formal complaint, but he did submit an untimely 

“response” to the Special Master’s report and recommendation 

attempting to offer mitigating information. See Op. 2-3 n.1. The 

Majority Opinion helpfully explains in footnote one why the Court 

did not consider Perry’s “response” and what Perry could have filed 

instead of this “response.” I hope future lawyers will look to this 

footnote for guidance for what they ought to do when faced with a 

disciplinary default arising from, perhaps, their inability to 

recognize that they are in a serious funk due to stress, depression, 

or a chronic health condition (and sometimes all three). Of course, it 

is often difficult to recognize that you are in the fog until it has lifted. 

In the spirit of former Chief Justice Benham, see In the Matter 

of Finley, 268 Ga. 251, 255-256 (488 SE2d 74) (1997) (C.J. Benham, 
13

dissenting in part and concurring in part) (outlining helpful 

programs provided by the State Bar of Georgia to assist lawyers in 

the operation of a successful law office), I remind lawyers of the 

resources available from the State Bar of Georgia and Attorney 

Wellness Task Force, including:

• The Lawyers Assistance Program is a confidential service 

outsourced to CorpCare Associates, Inc., to help State Bar 

members with life’s difficulties. Members are entitled to six 

prepaid clinical sessions per calendar year.

• The SOLACE program is designed to assist any member of the 

legal community (lawyers, judges, law office and court staff, 

law students and their families) in Georgia who suffer serious 

loss to a sudden catastrophic event, injury or illness.

• Georgia Lawyers Helping Lawyers is a confidential volunteer 

peer support program created by the Lawyer Assistance 

Committee of the State Bar of Georgia to give additional tools 

to members who might benefit from a peer to talk to about the 

difficulties in their lives. Peer support generally involves 

people sharing similar experiences with an illness, struggle, 

professional issue, or life circumstance.

Because I would have imposed discipline short of disbarment, 

I respectfully dissent.