In October 2012, this Court suspended Respondent Amjad Muhammad Ibrahim State Bar No. 382516 for 18 months and imposed conditions on his reinstatement as discipline for his violation of a variety of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct as set out in Bar Rule 4-102 d, including, in relevant part, Rules 1.15 I and 1.15 II. See In the Matter of Ibrahim, 291 Ga. 774 733 SE2d 331 2013. Shortly thereafter, the State Bar filed a new Formal Complaint and Ibrahim filed a petition for voluntary discipline agreeing to accept a three-to-six month extension of his suspension for his new violations of Rules 1.15 I and II. Although the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.15 is disbarment, the special master, James H. Cox, agreed to accept Ibrahim’s petition and recommended a six-month extension of Ibrahim’s suspension for the new violations.
The facts underlying this grievance are that in April 2011 Ibrahim began representing a couple in a personal injury claim arising from an automobile accident. During the representation the couple began experiencing financial difficulties and approached Ibrahim for assistance. Ibrahim’s paralegal contacted a financing company and arranged for the couple to receive pre-settlement, nonrecourse financing. The company sent funds to the couple periodically, ultimately providing $2,950 according to its records. Each time, a courier would deliver to Ibrahim’s office a sealed envelope addressed to the couple containing the funds in cash and Ibrahim’s paralegal would arrange for the couple to come in and retrieve the money. The paralegal would open the package from the financing company, have the couple sign a written receipt and then give them the enclosed sealed envelope containing the cash. The paralegal did not maintain records of the amount of money the couple received from the company, nor was any of that money deposited into and disbursed from Ibrahim’s trust account. In January 2012 the couple terminated Ibrahim’s representation of them and filed the underlying grievance. Ibrahim admits that he violated Rule 1.15 by failing to supervise his paralegal in her handling of the funds and by failing to deposit the money into his trust account and disburse it from that account to the couple.
