Court Opinion

ID: 9372367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 14:02:35.068286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:34.749988
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                    Decided: February 21, 2023

           S23Y0269. IN THE MATTER OF KARA SHERRISSE
                            LAWRENCE.

        PER CURIAM.

        This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation                  of     special        master          Catherine           Koura,          who

recommends that Respondent Kara Sherrisse Lawrence (State Bar

No. 534355) be disbarred for her multiple violations of the Georgia

Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) in connection with her

representation of a single client. See Bar Rule 4-218. Having

reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate

sanction in this case.

        The record before this Court reflects that, in June 2020, the

State Bar filed and served the underlying formal complaint by

publication. Lawrence, who was admitted to the Bar in 2016, failed
to answer the formal complaint, and the special master granted the

State Bar’s motion for default. See Bar Rule 4-212 (a). The special

master then found that Lawrence, through her default, was deemed

to admit the following allegations of the formal complaint.

     In February 2019, a client hired Lawrence to initiate and

handle his immigration matter. The client signed an attorney-client

retainer agreement, which provided for a $3,500 retainer as a “flat

fee in lieu of [Lawrence]’s hourly rate” and authorized Lawrence to

debit that amount from the client’s bank account. The agreement

specified that the attorney-client relationship between Lawrence

and the client would continue until “completion of the matter or

upon earlier termination of the relationship as provided” in the

agreement. Neither Lawrence nor the client ever took steps to cancel

or terminate the agreement.

     On February 22, 2019, Lawrence debited $1,000 from the

client’s account as a deposit on the retainer. Several days later, she

debited another $1,030. Then, on March 5, 2019, she debited

another $3,321.75 from the client’s account. Lawrence provided the

                                  2
client no advance notice of the March 5 debit and no notice that she

was debiting more in total than the $3,500 he had authorized.

     The United States Customs and Immigration Service

(“USCIS”) has an online portal for processing immigration claims.

When an attorney is involved in an immigration claim, the client is

required to accept the lawyer’s representation within the online

portal. Lawrence’s client and his daughter repeatedly attempted to

contact Lawrence to learn how to accept her representation in the

portal and to learn of the status of the client’s matter. On several

occasions, a person in Lawrence’s office sent the client a “code” to

use to accept the representation, but none of the codes were valid.

Thus, Lawrence never entered an appearance in the client’s

immigration matter and did not (and could not) file any immigration

paperwork on his behalf. Nevertheless, on May 21, 2019, a person

from Lawrence’s office sent the client an email stating that his

“application [wa]s moving forward” and directing him to “create an

account if [he] d[id] not already have one” with immigration services.

Twice, the client appeared at Lawrence’s office to speak with her

                                  3
about how to have his matter proceed with USCIS. The first time,

no one in her office was able to provide the client with any specific

information, although he was assured that she was working on his

case. The second time, during late May 2019, the client discovered

that Lawrence had abandoned her law office and left no contact

information. The client continued to try to contact Lawrence, but

was unsuccessful.

     Eventually, the client filed a grievance with the State Bar. In

Lawrence’s response to that grievance, she misidentified her client

as “Mr. Bennett,” explaining that “Mr. Bennett’s package” of

immigration filings could not be processed by USCIS because “Mr.

Bennett” refused “to formally accept [Lawrence’s] representation.”

She further represented that “[d]riving to [her office in] Cobb County

was [] not of interest to Mr. Bennett.” Lawrence attached to her

response a copy of the email from her office to the actual client—i.e.,

not Mr. Bennett—in this matter, but she offered no other evidence

of any codes being sent to the client, any other communication with

him, or any other follow-through by her or her staff.

                                  4
     Following Lawrence’s response to the grievance, the Bar

requested that she provide it with certain documents and

information related to this matter and to her IOTLA accounts,

including her bank statements; her Rule 1.15 (I) (a)/1.15 (II) (b) trust

account record/ledgers; any documentary evidence authorizing her

to charge the client for the amounts she charged him; copies of any

filings she had submitted to any government agency on the client’s

behalf; and any proof of contact with the client prior to him filing the

grievance. Lawrence did not respond to the Bar’s request.

     On June 7, 2021, Lawrence acknowledged service of the Notice

of Investigation in this matter and provided an “Oath to Response,”

but she provided no additional response. Instead, she directed the

State Disciplinary Board to consider her response to the grievance

as her written response under oath to the Notice of Investigation—

despite its references to “Mr. Bennett,” who was not the client in this

disciplinary matter. Lawrence never provided any trust accounting

information to the Bar and did not refund any of the $5,351.75 she

had debited from the client’s account.

                                   5
      By this conduct, the special master determined that Lawrence

violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (III) (e), 1.16 (d), 8.1,

8.4 (a) (4),1 and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct

found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation

of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (III) (e), 8.1, and 8.4 (a) (4) is

disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of the

remaining rules is a public reprimand.

      The special master appropriately considered the ABA

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of

Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), and found that

Lawrence’s actions were intentional and that they caused her client

both actual and potential harm. In aggravation of discipline, the

special master cited Lawrence’s dishonest or selfish motive as

evidenced by her efforts to conceal her misconduct from her client

and her intentional failure to comply with the disciplinary process;

her pattern of misconduct which continued for more than a year with

      1  The violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) arises, at least in part, from Lawrence’s
knowing misrepresentation to her client that his matter was proceeding when
in fact it was not.

                                         6
regard to this client; her commission of multiple offenses; her bad

faith obstruction of the disciplinary process as evidenced by her

failure to properly respond to the grievance, the notice of

investigation, the formal complaint, and the Bar’s requests for

information; her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her

conduct; the vulnerability of her victims; and her indifference to

making restitution. See ABA Standard 9.22 (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h),

and (j). In mitigation, the special master noted Lawrence’s lack of a

prior disciplinary history and her inexperience in the practice of law.

ABA Standard 9.32 (a) and (f). Ultimately, the special master

concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

     Having reviewed the record, we agree with the special master.

Lawrence’s abandonment of her client and her failure to respond to

the disciplinary authorities warrants the sanction of disbarment,

and this sanction is consistent with prior cases in which we have

disbarred attorneys who abandoned clients and failed to respond to

disciplinary authorities. See, e.g., In the Matter of Bell, 313 Ga. 615

(872 S.E.2d 290) (2022); In the Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859 (854

                                  7
SE2d 731) (2021); In the Matter of Bennett, 307 Ga. 679 (837 S.E.2d

298) (2019); In the Matter of Annis, 306 Ga. 187 (829 SE2d 346)

(2019); In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (806 SE2d 596) (2017).

     Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Kara

Sherrisse Lawrence be removed from the rolls of persons authorized

to practice law in the State of Georgia. Lawrence is reminded of her

duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

     Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

                                 8