These disciplinary matters are before the Court on three Reports and Recommendations of the special master, Peter R. Olsen. These matters stem from separate formal complaints filed against John J. Lieb State Bar No. 452039. The formal complaints charge violations of Rules 1.2 a, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 d, 3.2 and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 d. The maximum sanction for violations of Rules 1.2 and 1.3 is disbarment, and for Rules 1.4, 3.2, and 1.16 d the maximum sanction is a public reprimand. Lieb acknowledged service of the formal complaints, but failed to file timely answers as required by Rule 4-212 a. As to each complaint, the special master found the facts alleged and violations charged to be deemed admitted pursuant to Bar Rule 4-212 a. The admitted facts show the following: In the first matter, Lieb, who was admitted to the Bar in 1983, was retained in 2007 by a client to represent an inmate before the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and to negotiate a position in a work-release program, as well as a transfer to a different prison. The client paid Lieb $2,500 and provided documents to him, but Lieb took no action in the matter and did not contact the inmate. Lieb did not respond to the client’s request for a refund of the fee and the return of the documents she had provided. Lieb did not respond to letters sent by the State Bar about the matter. Lieb did respond to the Notice of Investigation and stated that he would return the fee and documents, and explained that he was suffering personal problems and financial difficulties as a result of his failed marriage. However, Lieb never returned the fee or documents, and later claimed that the $2,500 was earned.
The second matter involved a client who retained Lieb to represent him in a criminal prosecution in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia. The client and his family paid Lieb $20,000. The client pled guilty, but Lieb abandoned the case after entry of the plea and did not appear at the sentencing hearing. Lieb failed to respond to communications from the client, the district court and the prosecutors assigned to the case. The district court issued a show cause order and directed Lieb to appear on October 2, 2009 to explain his conduct. Lieb was personally served the show cause order on September 18, 2009. On October 1, 2009 counsel for Lieb appeared and requested a continuance, which was denied. The following day Lieb’s counsel informed the court by telephone that he did not expect that Lieb would attend and that counsel would also be unable to attend. The district court convened the show cause hearing as scheduled, but Lieb did not attend. After Notices of Investigation were issued and service was acknowledged by Lieb’s counsel, Lieb failed to file answers as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3 a.
