Court Opinion

ID: 9398421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 13:05:11.789204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.418844
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                   Decided: May 31, 2023

  S23Y0492, S23Y0493, S23Y0494, S23Y0495, S23Y0496. IN THE

                           MATTER OF IAN ZIMMERMAN.

        PER CURIAM.

        These disciplinary matters are before the Court on the

consolidated report and recommendation of Special Master Quentin

L. Marlin that Ian Zimmerman (State Bar No. 853012) be disbarred

for his violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.16, 4.1, and 8.4 (a)

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

Bar Rule 4-102 (d). These matters arose from five different client

matters leading to five different complaints. Despite acknowledging

service of each of those complaints, claiming to have provided timely

answers, and being given additional time to support that claim,

Zimmerman, who has been a member of the State Bar since 2011,

never provided evidence that he in fact filed timely answers with the
State Bar. After holding a hearing, which Zimmerman attended, the

Special Master found Zimmerman in default and, pursuant to Bar

Rule 4-212 (a), deemed Zimmerman to have admitted the facts

alleged   and   violations   charged   in   the   formal   complaints.

Zimmerman has filed no exceptions to the Special Master’s report

and recommendation. Based on the record before us, we agree that

Zimmerman should be disbarred.

     These cases arise from Zimmerman’s representation of clients

in personal injury cases, wherein he failed to communicate with the

clients and did not disburse the full amount of settlement proceeds

upon the settlement of each matter. With regard to State

Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7306, Zimmerman

represented a client who had been represented by an attorney at a

different law firm, with whom the client had signed a contract

entitling the law firm to a 33-percent attorneys’ fee plus costs of

litigation upon termination of services. The client’s claim with an

insurance company settled for $25,000, and the law firm that had

represented the client submitted an attorney lien to the insurance

                                  2
company for $8,355.87. Zimmerman contacted the client’s previous

attorney and entered into an agreement whereby the law firm would

release the attorney lien in exchange for Zimmerman paying 80

percent of the law firm’s fees and costs and resolving the client’s

other outstanding liens and bills. Zimmerman advised the previous

attorney that he would send a check overnight as soon as the

settlement check cleared his bank. Zimmerman received and

deposited the settlement check, but he did not respond to most of the

former attorney’s numerous inquiries regarding payment. When he

did respond, he said he would send the funds owed to the law firm,

but he never did.

     The Special Master concluded that Zimmerman violated Rule

1.15 (I) by failing to disburse the funds owed to the law firm from

the client’s settlement; and violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) by

misrepresenting to the attorney that he would disburse the amount

owed to the law firm once the settlement check cleared his bank

account and subsequently failing to do so.

                                 3
     With regard to SDBD No. 7307, Zimmerman represented a

client suing an individual and three different insurance companies

in a personal injury matter. The client’s claims against the

individual and two of the insurance companies settled for $11,000,

and the client executed a release of her claims against those parties.

Zimmerman prepared a settlement breakdown whereby the client

was to receive $3,583.54, Zimmerman was to receive $3,666.30, and

the remainder was to be paid to the client’s medical providers.

Zimmerman advised the client that he would contact her medical

providers to determine how much money was owed for her

treatment, and that he would disburse any remaining funds to her

after her medical bills were paid. Zimmerman disbursed the initial

$3,583.54 to the client, but he failed to pay all of her medical

providers and failed to disburse any remaining funds to her.

Moreover, the client’s claim against the third insurance company

later settled and she executed a release of claims, but Zimmerman

failed to disburse those settlement funds to her. Zimmerman did not

respond to the client’s attempts to contact him regarding the

                                  4
settlement funds owed to her and her medical providers, and he

failed to disburse to the client the entire amount due to her.

     The Special Master concluded that Zimmerman violated Rule

1.4 by failing to respond to the client’s requests for information

about the settlement funds; Rule 1.15 (I) by failing to disburse the

funds owed to the client and failing to pay her medical providers;

and Rule 8.4 (a) (4) by withholding funds from the settlement of the

client’s claims that were owed to her or her medical providers.

     In SDBD No. 7339, from the outset of the representation,

Zimmerman’s client attempted to contact him about her case on

numerous occasions, but Zimmerman failed to respond or provide

updates. Zimmerman told the client that he sent correspondence,

including a demand letter, to the tortfeasor’s insurance company.

Although the client terminated Zimmerman as her attorney,

Zimmerman told the client that he was required to continue working

on her case because he had already sent a demand to the insurance

company. But Zimmerman sent a demand to the insurance company

only after the client had terminated his services, and he continued

                                  5
to communicate with the insurance company on the client’s behalf

without her authority. The client hired a new attorney, who

requested the file from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman failed to

return the file to the client or the new attorney, and later accepted

the policy limit offered by the insurance company on behalf of the

client. The new attorney requested by email that Zimmerman cease

and desist any further action on the case because he had been

terminated. Nonetheless, Zimmerman sent a letter to the insurance

company requesting that it forward the settlement check and a

limited liability release to his firm. The new attorney again emailed

Zimmerman requesting the file and advising him to stop contacting

the client. Zimmerman sent a letter to the insurance company

asserting a lien on the settlement proceeds. He finally turned over

the file to the new attorney, but it did not contain correspondence,

medical records, or the demand sent to the insurance company.

Zimmerman then sent a letter to the insurance company stating

that he had resolved the dispute with the new attorney and

                                 6
requesting that the insurance company disburse $7,500 to him and

the remainder to the client and her new attorney.

     The Special Master concluded that Zimmerman violated Rule

1.2 (a) by failing to consult with the client about the scope and

objectives of the representation and continuing to act on her behalf

without authority after she terminated him; Rule 1.3 by failing to

perform work on the client’s case; Rule 1.4 by failing to communicate

with the client or respond to her requests for information; and Rule

1.16 by failing to withdraw from representation once the client

terminated him and failing to promptly return her file. Moreover,

the Special Master found that Zimmerman violated Rule 4.1 by

continuing to negotiate with the insurance company about the case

after he was terminated, thereby misrepresenting to the insurance

company that he was still the client’s attorney. Finally, the Special

Master again found that Zimmerman violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) by

misrepresenting to the client that he had sent a demand to the

insurance company before being terminated and by misrepresenting

                                 7
to the insurance company that he was still her attorney after he was

terminated.

     In SDBD Nos. 7340 and 7341, two clients initially retained a

different law firm to represent them, which referred their cases to

Zimmerman. Zimmerman settled the cases and settlement checks

were disbursed to him by the insurance company. He cashed the

checks but failed to inform the clients, disburse the amounts due to

them, pay their medical providers, or respond to their numerous

attempts to contact him about the settlement funds.

     The Special Master found that Zimmerman violated Rule 1.2

by failing to consult with the clients about the disbursement of

settlement funds to them and their medical providers; Rule 1.3 by

failing to promptly and diligently disburse the funds to the clients

and their medical providers; Rule 1.4 by failing to respond to

requests for information about the settlement funds; Rule 1.15 (I) by

failing to disburse the funds owed to the clients and their medical

providers; and Rule 8.4 (a) (4) by withholding funds from the clients’

settlements that were owed to them or to their medical providers.

                                  8
     In connection with each matter, the Special Master noted that

the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), 4.1,

and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a

violation of Rules 1.4 and 1.16 is a public reprimand.

     Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, the Special

Master correctly noted that this Court generally looks to the

American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer

Sanctions   (“ABA    Standards”)       for   guidance   in   determining

punishment. See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d

232) (1996). ABA Standard 3.0 provides for consideration of the

following factors: the duty violated; the lawyer’s mental state; the

potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and

the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. As to the duty

violated, the Special Master noted that the ABA Standards assume

that the most important duties are the obligations a lawyer owes to

clients, including the duty to preserve the client’s property and the

duty of diligence.

                                   9
     The Special Master found that Zimmerman violated the duty

of diligence in his representation of his clients and the duty to fulfill

his obligations with regard to client property in his possession. The

Special Master further noted that lawyers owe duties to the general

public, including the duty not to engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, or interference with the administration of justice.

The Special Master found that Zimmerman engaged in knowing and

intentional dishonest conduct with his clients and with third parties.

The Special Master noted that the extent of the injury is defined by

the type of duty violated and the extent of actual or potential harm;

he concluded that Zimmerman’s clients and third parties suffered

actual injury as a result of his actions.

     The Special Master recited that disbarment is generally

appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and

causes injury or potential injury to a client, see ABA Standard 4.11;

knowingly fails to perform services for a client or engages in a

pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious

or potentially serious injury to the client, see ABA Standard 4.41;

                                   10
knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or

another person, see ABA Standard 4.61; makes a false statement,

submits false information, or improperly withholds material

information with the intent to deceive the court, and causes a

significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal

proceeding, including in the context of disciplinary proceedings, see

ABA Standard 6.11; or knowingly engages in conduct that is a

violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a

benefit for the lawyer or another, see ABA Standard 7.1.

     In aggravation, the Special Master considered Zimmerman’s

prior disciplinary offense, for which he received a formal letter of

admonition for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15 (I), see ABA

Standard 9.22 (a); his dishonest or selfish motive shown by his

receipt of financial benefit from his misconduct, see ABA Standard

9.22 (b); his repeated pattern of misconduct, see ABA Standard 9.22

(c); his violation of seven provisions of the GRPC in five separate

matters, see ABA Standard 9.22 (d); his bad-faith obstruction of the

disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the

                                  11
disciplinary rules and the Special Master’s directives, see ABA

Standard 9.22 (e); his false statement that he filed answers to the

formal complaints, see ABA Standard 9.22 (f); his refusal to

acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, see ABA Standard

9.22 (g); his substantial experience in the practice of law, as a

member of the State Bar since 2011, see ABA Standard 9.22 (i); and

his indifference to making restitution, see ABA Standard 9.22 (j).

The Special Master found no mitigating facts applicable to this case.

     Finally, the Special Master concluded that Zimmerman

ignored the gravity of the disciplinary proceedings by failing 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, failed to perform work for their clients, and engaged

in dishonest and deceitful conduct by converting funds belonging to

clients and third parties and failing to protect third-party interests

in funds in the attorney’s possession. Neither Zimmerman nor the

                                 12
State Bar filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report and

recommendation or requested review by the Review Board.

      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 admitted, by virtue of default, to

violating 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 Power, 314 Ga. 504 (877 SE2d 601)

(2022) (disbarring defaulting attorney for violations of Rules 1.2 (a),

1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (III), 1.16 (d), and 9.3); In the

Matter of Boyd, 312 Ga. 282 (862 SE2d 135) (2021) (disbarring

defaulting attorney for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I),

4.1, and 8.4); In the Matter of Berry, 310 Ga. 158 (848 SE2d 71)

(2020) (disbarring defaulting attorney for violations of Rules 1.2 (a),

1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (b), 1.5 (c) (2), 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (b), and 8.4 (a) (4)); In the

Matter of Bennett, 307 Ga. 679 (837 SE2d 298) (2019) (disbarring

defaulting attorney for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 3.2,

and 8.4 (a) (4)); In the Matter of Thompson, 306 Ga. 618 (832 SE2d

                                      13
334) (2019) (disbarring defaulting attorney for violations of Rules

1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 (d)).1 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that

the name of Ian Zimmerman be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Zimmerman is

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

     Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

     1In his report and recommendation, the Special Master helpfully noted
many of these same cases in recommending disbarment.

                                   14