This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Petition for Voluntary Discipline of Respondent Murl E. Geary in which he admits to violations of Rules 1.4 and 5.3 d 2 of Rule 4-102 d of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and seeks the imposition of a one-year suspension. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand while the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 5.3 d2 is disbarment. Both the State Bar and the special master recommend that this Court accept Geary’s petition. In his petition, Geary admits that in one matter, he received a phone call in July 2003 from a disbarred lawyer with whom Geary was acquainted asking Geary if he was interested in representing an individual in a legal malpractice case. Geary agreed to accept the representation if the disbarred lawyer could get the client to sign a contract and pay a $5,000 fee, which the disbarred lawyer did. Geary subsequently filed a lawsuit on behalf of the client and directed the disbarred lawyer to deliver interrogatories to the client. Geary further admits that his only contact with the client was by telephone; that in or about August 2005, the Fee Arbitration Division of the State Bar of Georgia awarded the client a $5,000 refund of the fee; and that although he has withdrawn from representing the client, he has not paid the arbitration award.
Geary also admits that in a separate matter, he agreed to represent a client in February 2004 and filed a complaint for modification on the client’s behalf; that the case was scheduled for a hearing in March 2004 and the client did not appear; that although he believed that he notified the client, Geary’s file does not contain a copy of any letter or other notice to the client; that he asked that the hearing be continued but his request was denied; that the trial court did hear the client’s ex-wife’s counterclaim in which she sought sole custody and increased child support; that the trial court granted his client’s ex-wife sole custody and increased his client’s child support payments; that he was mistaken about the amount of his client’s income and erroneously believed that the increased amount came within the legislative guidelines; and that although the court agreed to rehear his client’s case in May 2004, his client’s ex-wife requested and was granted a stay of the case as she was serving abroad in the military and consequently, his client continued to be charged a higher amount of child support than that suggested by the guidelines.
