Court Opinion

ID: 9618137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:07:31.199466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:24.612212
License: Public Domain

Per curiam.
This matter is before the Court on Respondent Nerrylle Manning-Well ace’s petition for voluntary discipline, filed after the issuance of a Formal Complaint and appointment of a special master. In her petition Manning-Wallace requests imposition of a Review Panel reprimand for her violations of Rules 3.3 (a) (4) and 3.4 (b) (1) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar recommended that the special master approve the petition, which the special master did.
The facts show that Manning-Wallace was injured in an automobile accident in 2003 and underwent physical therapy. She filed a claim pro se against the other driver and at the 2006 trial Manning-Wallace offered into evidence two documents she had produced previously to the other driver’s insurance company. One was an “Initial Evaluation” form from the therapist and the other was an account statement from the therapist listing treatment from July 29, 2003 to October 15,2003. A representative from the therapist’s office testified at trial that they had no such documents in their records, that Manning-Wallace was not listed on the sign-in sheets for those dates, and that the statement was not a bill from their office. In her petition, although Manning-Wallace admits that the documents were fabricated, that she knew or should have known that the documents were fabricated and that her conduct violated Rules 3.3 and 3.4, she nevertheless denies “creating” the fabricated documents.
Looking at the punishment this Court has imposed for the intentional creation of false documents to deceive a court and harm another party, we held in In the Matter of Dogan, 282 Ga. 783 (653 SE2d 690) (2007) that disbarment was appropriate because the lawyer was held in criminal contempt by the trial court and defaulted in the disciplinary proceeding. In another case where the lawyer fabricated what purported to be an order from a federal appellate court, the punishment was an Investigative Panel reprimand, see In the Matter of Rowan, State Disciplinary Board Docket No. 4194 (no longer confidential due to subsequent disciplinary proceedings, see Bar Rule 4-208), and in a similar case where the lawyer forged a judge’s signature on an affidavit of garnishment to deceive his client but which was not submitted to the court or other party, the Court imposed a 30-day suspension. See In the Matter of Bagley, 267 Ga. 311 (477 SE2d 834) (1996).
Here, having reviewed the record, it does not appear that a Review Panel reprimand is the appropriate level of discipline in this *224case. Therefore, the Court hereby rejects Manning-Wallace’s Petition for Voluntary Discipline.

Voluntary petition rejected.

All the Justices concur.