Court Opinion

ID: 9611948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:40.514768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:18.244337
License: Public Domain

Per curiam.
The State Bar instituted the instant disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Steven Robert Schrader, a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1990, after learning that Schrader, who had moved to Suffolk County, New York in 1996, had pled guilty to the criminal offense of practicing law without a license in violation of § 478 of the Judicial Law of New York. The State Bar petitioned this Court for the appointment of a special master pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 alleging that Schrader’s misdemeanor conviction constituted a violation of Standard 66 (conviction of any felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). By order dated February 26, 1999, this Court appointed a special master and on March 16, 1999 Schrader acknowledged service of both the petition for appointment and this Court’s order making the appointment. The special master held a hearing on March 31, 1999 after which he permitted Schrader and the State Bar to submit briefs. Subsequently, on April 29, 1999, the special master issued his recommendation to dismiss the proceeding finding that Schrader’s conviction was not a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Among its findings, the special master concluded that while Schrader’s guilty plea to filing a pleading to probate a will in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County, New York, without first seeking pro hac vice admission in the probate matter, established that he had acted “wrongfully, intentionally, knowingly, with criminal negligence” it did not establish that Schrader acted dishonestly, fraudulently, deceitfully, or with similar motivation or even that Schrader acted with knowledge that his conduct was wrongful or with intent to harm any individual or with intent to impair the administration of justice or injure other State interests.
The State Bar filed Exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master and a brief in support thereof on May 11, 1999 arguing that the special master erred in determining that a violation of § 478 of the Judicial Law of New York was not a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude for the purposes of Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar asked this Court to set aside the special master’s conclusions and recommendation, to enter an order finding that Schrader violated Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and to impose the discipline of disbarment, as defined by Bar Rule 4-102 (b) (1), or such other discipline as this Court deems appropriate.
Schrader prepared and filed documents in the surrogate’s court showing himself to be “Attorney for Petitioner” and listing himself under “Name of Attorney.” He did this knowing that he was not licensed to practice law in New York, and knowing that he could not *602take any action on behalf of a client in New York without first seeking, and receiving, pro hac vice admission for the matter at hand. He had previously followed the proper procedure and was aware of the requirement. Filing a pleading that showed he was the attorney for the petitioner when he knew he could not so serve unless the court specifically granted him permission to do so constituted a misrepresentation to the court, see In re Aeree, 269 Ga. 57 (495 SE2d 293) (1998), and directly implicated Schrader’s role as an attorney. Because this Court agrees with the State Bar that Schrader’s misdemeanor conviction and the facts giving rise thereto involve moral turpitude and constitute a violation of Standard 66, this Court rejects the recommendation of the special master. Given the circumstances presented, this Court finds that a one-year suspension of Schrader’s license to practice law is an appropriate sanction in this case.
Accordingly, Schrader is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this state for one year. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c) to timely notify all clients of his inability to represent them, to take all actions necessary to protect the interests of his clients, and to certify to this Court that he has satisfied the requirements of such rule.

One-year suspension.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., who concurs in the judgment only, and Fletcher, P. J., Sears and Hunstein, JJ, who dissent.