The State Bar of Georgia made a formal complaint against respondent Margrett A. Skinner State Bar No. 650748, alleging violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.16 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Prior to an evidentiary hearing on the formal complaint, Skinner filed a petition for voluntary discipline, admitting that she violated Rule 1.6 by improperly disclosing confidential information about a former client, and in which she agreed to accept a Review Panel reprimand for the violation. The special master and the State Bar recommended that we accept the petition for voluntary discipline. We rejected the petition, however, noting that a Review Panel reprimand is “the mildest form of public discipline authorized . . . for the violation of Rule 1.6,” In the Matter of Skinner, 292 Ga. 640, 642 740 SE2d 171 2013, and noting as well that the petition and accompanying record did not “reflect the nature of the disclosures except that they concern unspecified personal and confidential information or the actual or potential harm to the client as a result of the disclosures.” Id. at 642, n.6. Following our rejection of the petition, the special master conducted an evidentiary hearing, and he made his report and recommendation on December 18, 2013, in which he found that Skinner violated Rules 1.4 and 1.6 but not Rules 1.3 and 1.16.1 Neither party sought review of the report by the Review Panel, and the matter is again before this Court for decision.
In his report, the special master found that a client retained Skinner in July 2009 to represent her in an uncontested divorce, and she paid Skinner $900, including $150 for the filing fee. For six weeks, the client did not hear anything from Skinner, and after multiple attempts to contact Skinner, the client finally was able to reach Skinner again in October 2009. At that point, Skinner informed the client that Skinner had lost the paperwork that the client had given to Skinner in July. Skinner and the client then met again, and Skinner finally began to draft pleadings for the divorce. The initial drafts of the pleadings had multiple errors, and Skinner and the client exchanged several drafts and communicated by e-mail about the status of the case in October and early November 2009. Those communications concluded by mid-November, and Skinner and the client had no more communications until March 18, 2010, when the client reported to Skinner that her husband would not sign the divorce papers without changes. In April 2010, both the client and her husband signed the papers.
