Court Opinion

ID: 9851338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:10:55.421951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:53.757444
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
Thomas L. Washburn pled guilty to the criminal charge of fraudulent levy in violation of OCGA § 9-13-16. The special master recommended he be sanctioned by a mere public reprimand and the review panel adopted that recommendation. The State Bar filed exceptions, seeking disbarment of Washburn pursuant to Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102. In a decision contrary to the weight of precedent and, in my opinion, to our duty to the public, the majority has chosen to re*53ject the State Bar’s recommendation and to impose only a three-year suspension of Washburn.
Decided December 4, 1995.
William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane *54Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
*53Standard 66 authorizes disbarment upon conviction of any felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. In virtually every instance of attorney discipline for violation of Standard 66, this Court has either disbarred the respondent or accepted the respondent’s petition for voluntary surrender of license. Only rarely has the existence of some mitigating circumstance justified a lesser sanction. See, e.g., In the Matter of Roberts, 259 Ga. 267 (380 SE2d 51) (1989) (respondent’s criminal conduct appeared to be an isolated incident); In the Matter of Stubbs, 259 Ga. 283 (380 SE2d 462) (1989) (problems involving respondent’s law practice, destruction of his home by fire, divorce-related indebtedness and restitution); and In the Matter of Patteson, 262 Ga. 591 (423 SE2d 248) (1992) (inter alia, respondent had no prior criminal or disciplinary record and there was no showing of harm to a client or third party). Compare In the Matter of Hege, 258 Ga. 492 (371 SE2d 403) (1988) (respondent’s petition for voluntary six-month suspension accepted where respondent pled guilty to failure to file federal income tax return for one year).
No such mitigating factor is present in Washburn’s case. Indeed, evidence that he had failed to pay off a loan deed in a previous transaction was admitted as a “similar transaction” in his criminal trial. Not only does the majority concede that absence of a prior disciplinary record based on the similar transaction is not tantamount to a mitigating circumstance, but that there are instead aggravating circumstances in this case.
The State Bar is charged with the responsibility to maintain and enforce certain standards of ethical conduct on the part of its member attorneys. Rule 4-101. When those standards are violated as they have been in this case, then it is the responsibility of this Court to enable the State Bar to carry out the duties with which it is charged in a manner which will protect the public and foster its trust in the Bar and its members. Washburn’s fraudulent conduct not only violated his duty toward his client, but resulted in a substantial financial loss by third parties as well. In view of the fraud involved in Wash-burn’s conduct, his apparent disregard for the injury inflicted and the utter lack of any circumstance in mitigation of his behavior, I dissent to the majority’s suspension of Washburn’s license and I would enter an order disbarring him from the practice of law in Georgia.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears and Justice Thompson join in this dissent.
*54Alan F. Herman, for Washburn.