Court Opinion

ID: 9765707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:15:04.712008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:14.237764
License: Public Domain

NAHMIAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that a 12-month suspension with conditions on reinstatement would be appropriate discipline in this case. However, I disagree that the suspension should be nunc pro tunc to March 12, 2010, the date Mathis stopped practicing law not voluntarily but as a result of an interim suspension order that this Court entered after Mathis failed to respond to the State Bar’s Notice of Investigation as required by Rule 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (“During the investigation of a grievance filed under these Rules, the lawyer complained against shall respond to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules.”).
This Court has on occasion entered a suspension or voluntary surrender order nunc pro tunc to the date the lawyer being disciplined stopped practicing law. While the reasons for such nunc pro *550tunc orders have not been entirely clear or consistent, in a decision issued last November we explained that
disciplinary sanctions may be mitigated when lawyers who have violated Bar Rules admit their misconduct and take voluntary and affirmative action in response, such as promptly ceasing the practice of law because they anticipate future suspension or disbarment... . When a lawyer seeks mitigation on this basis, however, it may be difficult for the Bar and this Court to determine whether and when cessation of the practice of law actually occurred. We emphasize, therefore, that when an attorney requests entry of a suspension or voluntary surrender order nunc pro tunc, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to demonstrate that they voluntarily stopped practicing law, the date on which their law practice ended, and that they complied with all the ethical obligations implicated in such a decision, such as assisting clients in securing new counsel and facilitating the transfer of client files and critical information about ongoing cases to new counsel.
In the Matter of Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 156-157 (702 SE2d 136) (2010) (emphasis added).
Mathis’ petition for voluntary discipline, the State Bar’s response not objecting to the proposed discipline, and the majority opinion all fail to cite Onipede or explain why the proposed discipline is consistent with that recent and unanimous decision. In my view, the majority’s decision today is squarely contrary to Onipede, because Mathis did not voluntarily stop practicing law in anticipation of discipline but instead required the State Bar to seek an order from this Court formally suspending him due to his failure to respond to his notice of discipline — which itself is a significant disciplinary violation.
If the majority believes that the other mitigating factors presented by Mathis support a shorter post-order suspension, it should order a shorter suspension, rather than undermining the clear direction regarding nunc pro tunc disciplinary orders that we so recently provided in Onipede. Accordingly, I would reject the petition for voluntary discipline seeking a 12-month suspension nunc pro tunc to March 12, 2010, while noting that we would look favorably on a petition proposing a suspension without the nunc pro tunc condition. See In the Matter of Seshul, 287 Ga. 158, 158 (695 SE2d 24) (2010) (accepting a second petition for voluntary discipline seeking an interim suspension, which was identical to the first petition except for the deletion of a nunc pro tunc condition that the Court *551had explained was the reason for the first rejection).
Decided February 7, 2011.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.