Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES A. LANFORD, JR.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1990-09-27
Citations: 260 Ga. 408
Docket Number: Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 799
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES A. LANFORD, JR.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 260
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES A. LANFORD, JR.
(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 799)
(396 SE2d 228)
Decided September 27, 1990.
William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. Jeffrey M. Smith, for Lanford.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
Charles A. Lanford, Jr. was indicted in the Superior Court of Bibb County for five counts of the felony of obtaining drugs by fraudulent means. He pleaded guilty to the indictment, was sentenced, and filed a petition for voluntary discipline in the form of suspension from the practice of law for 12 months, admitting that his conviction constituted a violation of Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
The State Bar of Georgia has stated that because of the unusual mitigating circumstances in this matter, it has no objection to the discipline requested. Those circumstances, as found by the Special Master, are that Lanford became addicted to a prescription drug while using it pursuant to medical direction after an injury; that he has admitted his addiction and sought treatment; that he voluntarily withdrew from the practice of law when he was initially charged with the drug offenses; that he obtained prescriptions under the name of his father, a physician, without his father's knowledge; that no client or third party suffered any harm or injury as a result of his addiction; and that there is no record of any previous disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against Lanford.
The Special Master found those circumstances sufficient to mitigate the imposition of disbarment, the usual sanction for a violation of Standard 66, and found, accordingly, that suspension for 12 months from the practice of law would be an appropriate discipline in this case. We agree and, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (e), order that Lanford be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 12 months.
All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.