Court Opinion

ID: 9623527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:35:17.469642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:29.963937
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
The Investigative Panel of the State Bar found that Stewart violated Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and shall not wilfully abandon or disregard a legal matter entrusted to her), among several other rules set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment. Stewart did not timely respond to the Notice of Discipline and she is thus in default and is subject to such discipline as this Court may determine. Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). This Court has already suspended Stewart twice, once for two years for abandonment of a client, In the Matter of Stewart, 280 Ga. 821 (631 SE2d 106) (2006), and again in the following year with a concurrent indefinite suspension for the neglect of numerous clients. In the Matter of Stewart, 282 Ga. 337 (647 SE2d 53) (2007). As the majority notes, Stewart has provided no explanation for her behavior in this case and the record is completely devoid of any mitigating factors. Given Stewart’s extensive disciplinary history, I see no reason to impose yet another suspension and would instead disbar Stewart for her violation of Rule 1.3. See also Bar Rule 4-103 (finding of third disciplinary infraction shall, in and of itself, constitute grounds for disbarment). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s imposition of an indefinite suspension in this disciplinary case.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins this dissent.