Bar Complaint Against House Speaker Isn't a Conspiracy, Attorney Contends
An attorney representing a woman who filed a bar complaint against Georgia House Speaker David Ralston sent a letter to the State Bar of Georgia rebutting claims that her client was being exploited by political enemies.
June 27, 2019 at 05:39 PM
6 minute read
The woman behind a pending bar complaint against Georgia House Speaker David Ralston rebutted claims this week by the speaker's counsel that she is being exploited by a “cabal” of Ralston's political enemies.
Amanda Mosher's grievance “is not part of any subversive political conspiracy,” said her attorney, Atlanta legal malpractice and personal injury lawyer Linley Jones, in a June 21 letter to bar investigators.
Jones said Mosher refiled a complaint she previously brought against Ralston after learning from news reports earlier this year that others like her may have been harmed by Ralston's liberal use of legislative leave to postpone—sometimes for years—the resolution of cases pending against his clients. Ralston is an attorney in Blue Ridge.
Jones said Mosher was advised by the State Bar of Georgia that her decision to dismiss the earlier complaint did not prevent her from filing a new one.
Legislative leave allows lawmakers to postpone court hearings, trials or other actions that might interfere with their legislative schedules. Although the General Assembly meets for about three months a year, Ralston has claimed his duties as House speaker can create conflicts year-round.
Jones said Thursday that her letter was intended to rebut a June 3 letter penned by Ralston attorney James Balli urging bar investigators to dismiss Mosher's complaint, in part, because “a small, disingenuous cabal” was attempting to exploit her circumstances and use bar disciplinary rules as a “procedural weapon” to “cause political harm” to Ralston.
“There is no cabal for Ms. Mosher. I am the cabal,” said Jones, who has represented Mosher since a 2005 accident that killed Mosher's husband and her 4-year-old child. “My representation of her is not at all politically motivated,” she continued. “To the contrary, I did not relish at all the idea of the lawyer who committed this misconduct being a prominent political figure.”
But, she added, “We do believe that the misconduct is worthy of discipline, and we just want to be given fair consideration.”
On Thursday, Balli again called Mosher's grievance “a political attack disguised as a bar complaint.” Balli also claimed Mosher “is the one who said there was a group helping prepare these complaints.”
Ralston's lawyer also contended that Jones' rebuttal was a “regurgitation of the same errors” contained in the original complaint. Balli said he anticipates the complaint will be dismissed because “the state bar knows this is simply a political attack.”
Jones' rebuttal said Ralston “engaged in a course of conduct gaming the system” with his use of legislative leave. She contended that on several occasions, although Ralston invoked legislative leave, his campaign finance disclosures revealed he was campaigning or fundraising rather than engaged in legislative business.
Jones said Mosher's complaint is one of three currently pending against Ralston. The other two complaints allege similar abuses, she said.
Jones said that Mosher's grievance “is not an attack on legislative leave law” but, instead, “addresses more broadly an attorney's use of a statutory vehicle to undermine the administration of justice.”
When Ralston began representing Walter Layson, Layson was charged with vehicular homicide in the deaths of Mosher's husband and child. They were killed in 2005 after Layson's SUV rear-ended and ran over the family's compact car. Mosher's complaint contends that Ralston delayed final adjudication of the case for 5 ½ years, securing delays by invoking legislative leave 13 times, Jones said. The case was not resolved until 8 ½ years after the accident when Layson pleaded guilty while continuing to maintain his innocence, according to her rebuttal letter.
Jones took issue with Balli's description of the accident in his dismissal letter and with suggestions that the blame rested with Amanda Mosher. Balli's letter stated that the State Patrol had determined it was “merely a tragic accident caused, in part, by Ms. Mosher choosing to leave a parking lot and drive an unsafe and malfunctioning vehicle at less than 25 mph on a highway with a 65 mph speed limit.”
“This is just not true,” Jones said. “The [Georgia State Patrol] found 'no contributing factors' on the part of Mrs. Mosher.” Instead, she said that, after a “lengthy investigation,” accident investigators determined the collision was “a result of Mr. Layson failing to safely assess and provide an adequate amount of room between his vehicle” and Mosher's.
Jones said the cause of the wreck has no bearing on whether Ralston violated bar rules.
Jones' letter accused Ralston of at least eight rule violations stemming from Layson's case, including:
- Failing to act “with reasonable diligence and promptness” in his legal representation;
- Putting his own interests and legislative duties above the interests of his client;
- Conducting a defense or securing a delay intended “to harass or maliciously injure another;
- Failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation;
- Employing a “lack of candor” with the court in invoking legislative leave;
- Invoking legislative leave to obstruct or assist another in obstructing a party's access to evidence;
- Using legislative leave as “an obstructive tactic” to case the case “to grow stale;”
- Making a false statement of material fact;
- Using legislative leave as “a litigation tactic” that had no purpose “other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”
Additional Reading:
House Speaker David Ralston Claims Anonymous 'Cabal' Is Behind 2 Bar Complaints Against Him
House Speaker Appoints Own Defense Lawyer in Bar Complaint to Judicial Watchdog Agency
House Speaker David Ralston to Receive Reprimand at Annual Conference
Georgia High Court Reprimands House Speaker Ralston for Bar Rule Violations
House Speaker Could Receive Reprimand to Resolve Bar Complaint
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGeorgia's Governor Details Spending Plans but Not His Top Priority of Lawsuit Reform
6 minute readFourth Circuit Seeks More Legal Briefs in Unresolved N.C. Supreme Court Election
4 minute readFulton DA Seeks to Overturn Her Disqualification From Trump Georgia Election Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Amex Latest Target as Regulators Scrutinize Whether Credit Card Issuers Deliver on Rewards Promises
- 2Vedder Price Shareholder Javier Lopez Appointed to Miami Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board
- 3Wells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
- 4Legaltech Rundown: Robin AI Releases In-house Tool, Epona Merges With JustiSolutions, and More
- 5As Lawmakers Eye Need for NY Supreme Court Posts, Could a Ballot Question Remove the Constitutional Limit?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250