Court Opinion

ID: 9951813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 13:03:11.226157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:52.083608
License: Public Domain

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                Decided: March 19, 2024

     S24Z0598. IN THE MATTER OF JOEL DAVID MYERS.

     PER CURIAM.

     This matter is before the Court on Joel David Myers’s

Application for Certification of Fitness to Practice Law pursuant to

Part A, Section 10 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice

of Law in Georgia (the “Rules”). Myers was originally admitted to

the Bar in 1998 and worked at various iterations of his own law firm

from 1999-2009, with the most recent being Myers & Associates

Intellectual Property Law. In the winter of 2014, Myers failed to

respond to the State Bar’s Notice of Investigation related to a client

grievance, and this Court suspended him from the practice of law in

Georgia “until further order of [the] Court.” See S15Y0474 (Dec. 1,

2014). Then, in October 2015, this Court considered two separate

Notices of Discipline, alleging that Myers had violated Rules 1.3, 1.4,
1.5, 1.8, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16 (d), 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.3 of the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), in his

interactions with two clients in unrelated matters. Because Myers

failed to timely reject the Notices of Discipline, he was found to be

in default as to those matters and the alleged facts were deemed

admitted. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). After consideration of the record,

this Court disbarred Myers. See In the Matter of Myers, 297 Ga. 783

(778 SE2d 223) (2015).

     Asserting that his disbarment was the result of various

significant stressors in his life, which led to a lengthy battle with

untreated depression, and stating that he has taken steps to work

through that depression to the point that he is rehabilitated, Myers

now seeks readmission. Following review of his application and his

appearance at an informal conference, the Board to Determine

Fitness of Bar Applicants (the “Fitness Board”) voted to recommend

granting Myers’s application. The application is now before this

Court for final adjudication. See Bar Admission Rules, Part A, § 10

(e) (“[t]he Supreme Court shall make the final determination

                                   2
regarding certification of fitness” of attorneys applying for

readmission to the practice of law).

     In connection with his application for readmission, Myers filed

a statement of rehabilitation in accordance with In re Cason, 249

Ga. 806 (294 SE2d 520) (1982). He explained that, beginning in

2009, he experienced several major upheavals in his life that led to

an “undiagnosed severe depression” for five to six years. He

admitted that, as his depression and life worsened, he engaged in

the behavior which led to his disbarment, and that he “was not

mentally capable of providing a thorough response” to the 2013 and

2014 grievances filed against him. Myers expressed that he “feel[s]

horrible about [his] behavior that hurt so many and led to [his]

disbarment,” and he “take[s] full responsibility for [his] actions.”

According to Myers, he started to overcome his depression in 2015

by focusing on raising his son and rebuilding his life. After working

various jobs to regain financial stability, Myers reached out to one

of the clients involved in the case that led to his disbarment, offering

                                   3
to pay the former client full restitution, but the client declined that

offer.

         Myers has also submitted letters of recommendation from his

current boss (and former law partner) and others who know him

through his volunteer work, all of whom attest to Myers’s

professionalism, high moral character, and his ongoing commitment

to his work at their organizations. Notably, Myers’s former partner

describes Myers as a “prompt, diligent, respectful, and skillful”

worker and states his support for Myers’s readmission, noting that

“[p]rior to [the] issues [that led to Myers’s disbarment], he was an

excellent, diligent, and caring attorney and law partner” and that

Myers “is capable of regaining that status.”

         As part of its investigation, the Fitness Board provided notice

to the State Bar of Georgia and to the bar membership and chief

judge of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit where Myers practiced,

provided newspaper notice to the public in the area where Myers

had practiced, and sought confirmation from the Client Security

Fund that no restitution was due. See Part A, § 10 (d) (1)-(4) of the

                                     4
Bar Admission Rules. The Fitness Board received no response from

members of the public or the judiciary, but the State Bar responded

that, although there were other grievances filed against Myers

during and after the proceedings resulting in his disbarment, the

Bar had abandoned those matters as moot and had no plans to

pursue them.1 Moreover, none of the matters before the Bar required

Myers to make restitution to the Client Security Fund.

     At a conference before the Fitness Board, Myers took full

responsibility for his actions and made no excuses for them. He

expressed remorse for his actions and described his path to recovery.

After considering Myers’s testimony and written submissions, the

Fitness Board concluded that he had, by clear and convincing

evidence, carried his burden of demonstrating rehabilitation and

recommended that he be readmitted to the Bar. See In re Cason, 249

Ga. at 808-809 (explaining that bar admission applicants bear the

burden to establish rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence,

     1 The Bar did not specify the nature of the grievances that it dismissed

as moot.

                                     5
and “rehabilitation is the reestablishment of the reputation of a

person by his or her restoration to a useful and constructive place in

society,” including “[t]he requirement of positive action”).

     Upon consideration of the entire record, we defer to the Fitness

Board’s determination that Myers has shown that he is entitled to

be certified as fit to practice law in Georgia. Accordingly, as it

appears that Myers has satisfied all of the requirements for approval

of his application for certification of fitness, see Bar Admission

Rules, Part A, Section 10, this Court hereby grants Myers’s

application for certification of fitness and orders that, upon

satisfaction of all the requirements of Part B of the Rules, including

taking and passing the Georgia Bar Examination, Myers may be

readmitted as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of

Georgia.

     Certification of fitness for readmission granted. All the Justices
concur.

                                  6