Court Opinion

ID: 9599479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:19:00.379294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:53.560517
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 2 and 3 of the majority opinion and in the judgment. With regard to Division 1,1 agree that Green v. Green, 263 Ga. 551 (437 SE2d 457) (1993), does not control in this case because both parties were represented by counsel. However, in distinguishing Green, the majority correctly points out that “[h]ere, Mr. Lucas was represented, as Ms. Lucas’s counsel was well aware, having engaged in negotiations with Mr. Lucas’s counsel.” Majority Opinion, p. 241. Thus, I must agree that what plaintiff and her counsel did in taking the decree complied with the letter of the law. “Nevertheless, in light of the settlement discussions that had taken place between the parties’ lawyers, it appears the [wife’s] attorney’s action in proceeding to the final decree may have exceeded the bounds of professional and ethical conduct governing attorneys.” Evanoff v. Evanoff, 262 Ga. 303, 304 (418 SE2d 62) (1992) (Benham, J., concurring).
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Benham joins in this opinion.