This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the special master, M.T. Simmons, Jr., who recommends that the Court accept the petition for voluntary discipline filed by Respondent Kenneth H. Schatten State Bar No. 628813 after the issuance of a Formal Complaint and that it impose, as requested, a Review Panel reprimand for Schatten’s admitted violation of Rules 1.16 d and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 d. The State Bar has no objection to Schatten’s petition and we agree that a Review Panel reprimand is appropriate.
Schatten admits that he represented a client in a number of matters where she was the victim of domestic abuse. The client did not pay Schatten for these representations until January 2010, when her father paid for the representation through that date. At that time, the client and her father also signed a contract of employment and paid Schatten a retainer to represent the client in a divorce action filed by her in Fulton County and a family violence petition filed by her husband against her in Cherokee County. Later that same month, the client decided to seek reconciliation with her husband and dismissed Schatten, who ceased working on her case. Although Schatten admits that the client and her father had a remaining retainer balance of $2,727.50 at the time of his discharge, due to his financial circumstances he was unable to refund that amount to her and her father.1 The client and her father eventually initiated a fee dispute and in May 2011, the arbitration panel entered an award of $4,727.50 in favor of the client and her father, but Schatten remained unable to pay. The award was confirmed in the Superior Court of Fulton County which entered judgment against Schatten in February 2013. In April 2013, Schatten acting through counsel negotiated a Payment Plan Agreement and when Schatten completed payment under that plan in October 2013, the client and her father entered a satisfaction of their judgment against him. In the meantime, the Investigative Panel initiated a grievance against Schatten based on a referral from the Committee on the Arbitration of Attorney Fee Disputes. As a result of Schatten’s failure to respond to the grievance in a timely manner, Schatten served an interim suspension from January 2012 through August 2012.
