In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: October 4, 2022

S22Y1157, S22Y1158. IN THE MATTER OF FRANKLIN DAVID 

MCCREA.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on a 

consolidated report and recommendation by Special Master Jack 

Jeffrey Helms, Jr., addressing two formal complaints and 

recommending that the Court disbar Franklin David McCrea (State 

Bar No. 486850) for his violations of multiple provisions of the 

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), see Bar Rule 4-102 

(d), in connection with two client matters. For the reasons set forth 

below, we agree with the Special Master and order McCrea’s 

disbarment. 
2

McCrea was admitted to the State Bar in 19921 and has no 

prior disciplinary history. The record reflects that after the State 

Bar filed its two complaints, which were docketed as State 

Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7322 and 7448, McCrea 

participated in the disciplinary proceedings initially, but for the past 

17 months, it appears that he has ignored the proceedings. 

Specifically, in connection with SDBD No. 7322, he failed to respond 

to the notice of investigation, and although he acknowledged service

of the formal complaint, he failed to file a timely answer. In 

response to the State Bar’s motion for default, however, he admitted 

he had no defense to the allegations. In connection with SDBD 7448, 

McCrea filed an inadequate response to the notice of investigation2

 

1 On July 29, 2022, this Court entered an order suspending McCrea for 

his non-compliance with the requirements for continuing legal education. 

2 This Court first suspended McCrea in March 2020 after he failed to 

adequately respond to the notice of investigation underlying SDBD 7448, but 

the Court reinstated McCrea at the State Bar’s request after it determined that 

his belated response was adequate. See Case No. S20Y0902 (Mar. 3, 2020, and 

Aug. 3, 2020). Around this same time, it appears, from a review of the dockets 

of this Court and the Court of Appeals, that McCrea was a defendant in a 

criminal case, see McCrea v. State, Case No. A20I0203 (Apr. 15, 2020), cert. 

denied, Case No. S20C1232 (Dec. 21, 2020). There is no information about any

criminal proceeding in the record of these disciplinary matters.
3

and, after being personally served with the formal complaint in April 

2021, filed an untimely answer to the formal complaint in August 

2021, in which he admitted most of the facts and all of the rules 

violations alleged. In March 2022, the State Bar moved for 

judgment on the pleadings, and McCrea failed to respond. In his 

response to the Bar’s motion for default in SDBD 7322 and in his 

untimely answer in SDBD 7448, McCrea sought an opportunity to 

present mitigating evidence, but he ultimately failed to respond to 

the Special Master’s and the Bar’s counsel’s lengthy efforts to set up 

a hearing. Ultimately, the Special Master granted the motion for 

default and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Based on McCrea’s admissions and his default, the following 

facts appear. In connection with SDBD 7322, McCrea represented 

a client in 2018 in a federal criminal matter in which the client 

entered a guilty plea. The client retained appellate counsel to 

pursue post-conviction remedies, and appellate counsel contacted 

McCrea in late November 2018, asking that McCrea provide him 

with the client’s complete file. McCrea never provided the client’s
4

file to appellate counsel, and the client’s appeal was ultimately 

dismissed. In connection with SDBD 7448, McCrea was retained to 

represent a client in obtaining an uncontested divorce and was paid 

a flat fee of $950, but he failed to respond to inquiries from his client

regarding the status of the case. In late November 2018, McCrea 

sent his client an email, stating that he would call later that 

afternoon and that the divorce would be final by January 2019 at 

the latest. However, the divorce was never finalized by McCrea, and 

the client retained another attorney to finalize the divorce. 

The Special Master determined, and we agree, that by this 

conduct McCrea violated GRPC 1.2 (a) (lawyer shall abide by client’s 

decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall 

consult with client as to the means by which they are to be pursued);

1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing a client and shall not willfully abandon or disregard a 

legal matter entrusted to him); 1.4 (a) (3) (lawyer shall keep client 

reasonably informed about the status of the matter); 1.4 (a) (4)

(lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
5

information); 1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, lawyer 

shall take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, including 

surrendering papers); and 9.3 (during investigation of a grievance 

against him, lawyer shall respond to disciplinary authorities in 

accordance with State Bar Rules). The maximum sanction for a 

violation of GRPC 1.2 (a) and 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum 

sanction for a violation of the remaining rules is a public reprimand. 

In his consolidated report and recommendation, the Special 

Master correctly noted that while the primary purpose of a 

disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are 

not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional 

conduct, see In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461) 

(2011), this Court is also concerned with the public’s confidence in 

the profession, see id. The Special Master considered the ABA 

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992), see In the Matter 

of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996); determined that 

the following aggravating circumstances were present: multiple 

offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law, see ABA 
6

Standard 9.22 (d), (i); and found that McCrea’s lack of prior 

disciplinary record was the sole mitigating factor, see ABA Standard 

9.32 (a). The Special Master further noted that McCrea was given 

the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances at 

a hearing but rightly concluded that McCrea waived that 

opportunity by failing to respond to the Special Master’s and the

State Bar’s efforts to set up such a hearing. The Special Master 

concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an 

attorney who abandons his client and fails to respond to disciplinary 

authorities. Neither McCrea nor the State Bar sought review by the 

Review Panel, and McCrea failed to file exceptions to the Special 

Master’s report.

Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the 

appropriate sanction and that disbarment is consistent with prior 

cases in which an attorney has, indisputably, violated provisions of 

the GRPC that carry disbarment as a sanction and has failed to 

participate fully in the disciplinary process. See In the Matter of 

Bell, 313 Ga. 615 (872 SE2d 290) (2022) (disbarring attorney for 
7

violating GRPC 1.2 (a) and 1.3, as well as other rules, where 

attorney did not respond to Bar’s motion for partial summary 

judgment and filed untimely and inadequate exceptions to Special 

Master’s report and recommendation); In the Matter of Powell, 310 

Ga. 859, 860 (854 SE2d 731) (2021) (disbarring attorney for 

abandoning single client and failing to respond to disciplinary 

authorities for over two years). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered 

that the name of David Franklin McCrea be removed from the rolls 

of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. 

McCrea is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.