The Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday issued the following attorney discipline opinions:

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: December 23, 2019

S19Y0831. IN THE MATTER OF SCOTT D. BENNETT.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of  Discipline seeking the disbarment of Scott D. Bennett (State Bar No. 050607), who was admitted to the Bar in 2001. After acknowledging service of the Notice of Discipline, Bennett filed a perfunctory, one sentence Notice of Rejection, which fails to respond specifically to any of the allegations in either the Notice of Discipline or the Notice of Investigation on which it was based. Further, his Notice of Rejection failed to include a sworn response to the Notice of Investigation; therefore, Bennett's Notice of Rejection is not valid, see Bar Rule 4-208.3 (b). Accordingly, Bennett is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4–208.1 (b).

The facts, as deemed admitted by Bennett's default, are as follows. Bennett was hired to represent a client, who had been sued in connection with a lease dispute. In February 2016, the parties negotiated a settlement, whereupon the client sent Bennett an $8,000 check to forward to the plaintiff upon execution of the settlement documents. After depositing the check and sending draft settlement documents to plaintiff's counsel, Bennett abandoned the matter, failing to respond to opposing counsel's proposed revisions to the settlement documents and other inquiries, failing to forward the settlement funds, and failing to return the client's phone calls or otherwise communicate with him regarding the matter. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement; Bennett failed to appear for the hearing and, when contacted by the court, advised that the client did not oppose it; and the trial court granted the motion, ordering the client to pay the agreed-upon $8,000 in settlement of the case, plus $2,500 in attorney fees for bad faith in failing to conclude the settlement. Bennett failed to notify the client of the order, and, when the client thus failed to comply, the court entered judgment against the client in the amount of $10,500. Bennett has since failed to communicate with the client or respond to inquiries from the client's new counsel, and he has failed to return the $8,000. As noted above, Bennett has also failed altogether to respond to the Notice of Investigation and failed to file a valid response to the Notice of Discipline.

Based on these facts, the State Disciplinary Board found probable cause to believe that Bennett's conduct violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 3.2, and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found at Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment; the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 or 3.2 is a public reprimand. In aggravation of discipline, the State Bar notes that Bennett acted with a dishonest or selfish motive; failed to respond to the Notice of Investigation; and has significant experience in the practice of law. The only mitigating factor cited is Bennett's lack of prior disciplinary history.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. See, e.g., In the Matter of Mays, 303 Ga. 152 (810 SE2d 478) (2018) (disbarment warranted for abandoning client and failing to refund unearned retainer where attorney had substantial experience in practice of law and failed to respond adequately to disciplinary authorities); In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (806 SE2d 596) (2017) (disbarment warranted for abandoning client where attorney had substantial experience in practice of law and failed to respond to disciplinary authorities); In the Matter of Ali, 283 Ga. 225 (658 SE2d 115) (2008) (disbarment warranted for abandoning client and failing to respond to disciplinary authorities). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Scott D. Bennett be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Bennett is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b). 1

All the Justices concur.

1 Formerly, Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: December 23, 2019

S20Y0289. IN THE MATTER OF SARAH MALLAS WAYMAN.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary surrender of license filed by Sarah Mallas Wayman (State Bar No. 742600), pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2). Wayman has been a member of the State Bar since 1955 and currently has emeritus status. In her petition, Wayman admits the following. In connection with the settlement of a civil action, she received $75,000 from the defendant's insurer ("Settlement Funds") and deposited the Settlement Funds into a trust account. However, the Settlement Funds were not distributed to her client (the plaintiff) and third parties entitled to receive them. The plaintiff requested that Wayman provide an accounting regarding the Settlement Funds, but she could only account for $5,000 of the Settlement Funds, which she since has delivered to the plaintiff.

Wayman acknowledges that her conduct violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment. Wayman requests that the Court accept her petition for voluntary surrender of her license, which is tantamount to disbarment.

The State Bar recommends that the Court accept Wayman's petition for voluntary surrender of license, and based upon our review of the petition, we agree that acceptance of Wayman's petition is in the best interests of the Bar and the public. Accordingly, the name Sarah Mallas Wayman is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Wayman is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices concur.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: December 23, 2019

S19Z1567. IN THE MATTER OF SANDRA M. FULLER.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the Application for Certification of Fitness to Practice Law, pursuant to Part A, Section 10 of the Rules Governing Admission to Practice Law in Georgia (the "Rules"), submitted by Sandra M. Fuller. In 2011, Fuller voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law, which is tantamount to disbarment, after she was found guilty of nine felony counts of theft by conversion and sentenced under the First Offender Act. See Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4 (a) (2); see also Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 1.0 (e). The convictions arose from Fuller's failure to remit fees she earned performing indigent defense work to the law firm with which she was employed at the time the fees were earned. See Clarke v. State, 317 Ga. App. 471 (731 SE2d 100) (2012) (affirming convictions)1.

On June 8, 2018, Fuller submitted the instant Application for Certification, in which she disclosed her prior convictions and noted that she has since been discharged under the First Offender Act. In support of her application, Fuller submitted a statement of rehabilitation in which she describes having recommitted herself to service following her disbarment through involvement in her church and through her work, first as a volunteer and then as a full-time paid consultant, with Conquer Worldwide LLC, a ministry-based organization helping individuals build successful businesses. Fuller also notes her service with other organizations, as well as her receipt of various leadership and service awards over the past several years. In addition to her statement of rehabilitation, Fuller submitted letters of recommendation from eight individuals, including her current employer, current and past Conquer Worldwide clients, and Fuller was a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, attesting to Fuller's integrity, commitment, and talent.

Through its investigation, the Fitness Board determined that no grievances or other disciplinary matters against Fuller are pending before the State Bar and that all required restitution has been made to the Client Security Fund. At an informal conference convened before the Fitness Board, Fuller acknowledged and accepted responsibility for her past wrongdoing, expressed gratitude for the personal growth she has undergone in its aftermath, and described her desire to reestablish her standing as a productive member of the Bar. After considering Fuller's testimony and written submissions, the Fitness Board concluded that Fuller had, by clear and convincing evidence, carried her burden of demonstrating rehabilitation. See In re Cason, 249 Ga. 806, 808 (294 SE2d 520) (1982) (bar admission applicant bears burden to establish rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence).

Upon consideration of the entire record, we likewise conclude that Fuller has shown that she is entitled to be certified as fit to practice law in Georgia. Accordingly, as it appears that Fuller has satisfied all requirements for approval of her application for certification of fitness, see Rules, Part A, Section 10, this Court hereby grants Fuller's application for certification of fitness and orders that, upon satisfaction of all the requirements of Part B of the Rules, including taking and passing the Georgia Bar Examination, Fuller may be readmitted as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia.

Certification of fitness for readmission granted. All the Justices concur.

1 Fuller was denominated in her appeal by her then-married name, "Clarke."