This disciplinary matter arises from bond validation proceedings in which attorney John Floyd Woodham State Bar No. 775066 intervened on behalf of himself and Citizens for Ethics in Government, LLC, filed objections to the validation of the bonds, and later offered to withdraw the objections if developers concerned in the bonds paid a substantial amount of money. Following the filing of a grievance, the Investigative Panel of the State Bar of Georgia found probable cause to charge Woodham with violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.5 c, 4.2 a, and 8.4 a 4. Woodham then filed a petition for voluntary discipline, in which he agreed to a Review Panel reprimand for violations of only Rules 3.5 c and 4.2 a. Although the State Bar made no objection to the petition, we rejected it, noting that the petition did not address the alleged violations of Rules 3.1 and 8.4 a 4, the latter of which concerns “professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and is, therefore, among the most serious violations with which a lawyer can be charged. See In the Matter of Woodham, 291 Ga. 255 728 SE2d 659 2012.
After we rejected the petition for voluntary discipline, the State Bar filed a formal complaint, charging Woodham with violations of Rules 3.1, 3.5 c, 4.2 a, and 8.4 a 4. The State Bar, however, subsequently abandoned the charges for violations of Rules 3.1 and 3.5 c. A special master1 heard evidence on the remaining charges, and in his report and recommendation, the special master found that Woodham violated Rules 4.2 a and 8.4 a 4, and he recommended that Woodham be suspended for three months and receive a public reprimand. Both Woodham and the State Bar sought further review before the Review Panel, and in its report and recommendation, the Review Panel found only a violation of Rule 8.4 a 4, but it recommended that Woodham be suspended for six months and receive a Review Panel reprimand. The matter is now before this Court on the report and recommendation of the Review Panel. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Review Panel that the evidentiary record shows no violation of Rule 4.2 a, and we conclude that the record also fails to show clearly and convincingly a violation of Rule 8.4 a 4.2 Because those were the only charges with which the State Bar proceeded before the special master, we dismiss these disciplinary proceedings.
