 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Green11/21/2005
These disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to six Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Spurgeon Green III, who was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1995, violated Rules 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.15 (I) (b); 1.16 (d); 3.2; 8.4 (a) (4); and 9.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I) (b) or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarrment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.16, 3.2 or 9.3 is a public reprimand.
In Case No. S05Y1841, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that a client retained Green to assist him with matters relating to a guardianship case; that the client paid Green $600 in legal fees; and that Green entered an appearance but failed to take any further action in the case; that Green failed to return the client's phone calls or to communicate with him in any way and failed to refund his attorney fees or return his file; and that although Green was personally served with the Notice of Investigation in November 2004, he did not file a written response under oath as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a). Based on those facts, the State Bar asserts that Green violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
In Case No. S05Y1843, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that a client retained Green to represent him in a personal injury matter; that Green informed the client in December 2003 that his case had settled for $10,000; that Green gave the client one-third of the proceeds of the case and told him that he would provide the remainder in 90 days; that Green failed to deliver, or account for, the balance of the funds to the client; that Green failed to communicate with the client regarding the money due him; that Green thus abandoned completion of this legal matter without just cause and to the client's detriment; and that Green failed to respond to the Notice of Investigation even though he was personally served with it. Based on those facts, the State Bar asserts that Green violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.4 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
In Case No. S05Y1844 the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that in April 2003 a client retained Green to represent him in a criminal case, paying Green $750; that after meeting with the client once, Green failed to further communicate with him regarding his case (which is still pending); that Green thus abandoned this legal matter without just cause and to the client's detriment; and that Green failed to respond to the Notice of Investigation even though he was personally served with it. Based on those facts, the State Bar asserts that Green violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
In Case No. S05Y1845 the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that in August 2003 a client retained Green to represent her in an uncontested divorce , paying Green $459; that Green delivered the divorce papers to the client's incarcerated husband who returned the papers indicating that he intended to contest the divorce; that, at Green's request, the client then paid an additional $626 for Green to represent her in the contested divorce; that Green nevertheless failed to further communicate with the client regarding her case; that Green thus abandoned this legal matter without just cause and to the client's detriment; and that Green failed to respond to the Notice of Investigation even though he was personally served with it. Based on those facts, the State Bar asserts that Green violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
In Case No. S05Y1846, th
Page 1 2 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|