This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the report and recommendation of a special master appointed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 e. The special master recommends disbarring Respondent D. John Skandalakis for his violation of Rule 8.4 a 2 of Bar Rule 4-102 d.1 Because we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s conduct, we adopt the special master’s report and recommendation. 1. Relying on Bar Rule 4-213 a, Skandalakis contends that the special master erred by failing to have the hearing on his disciplinary action “stenographically reported.”2 Bar Rule 4-213 a, however, applies only to hearings that arise from the filing of a formal complaint by the State Bar, and Skandalakis’s hearing was a show cause hearing under Bar Rule 4-106 a3 following his conviction of a felony. Although it might be the best practice for special masters to stenographically report show cause hearings held under Bar Rule 4-106, the rule does not require special masters to do so. Accordingly, in this case, the special master did not err in failing to have Skandalakis’s hearing stenographically reported.4
2. On February 13, 2004, Skandalakis, who has been a member of the State Bar since 1982 and who served, for a time, on the Fulton County Commission, pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to one felony count of making a false statement in violation of 18 USC § 1001. By his plea Skandalakis admitted to having knowingly and willingly made a false statement to an agent of the FBI who was investigating corruption in the Fulton County government. During the investigation, Respondent was asked by the agent if he had participated in a vote by the Commission to approve a contract between Fulton County and a proposed vendor at a time when the vendor was confidentially paying Respondent as a “consultant.” Although Respondent asserted that he “did not know” whether he voted on the contract, he now admits that his statement was false and that he knew it to be false when he made it. Respondent’s conviction clearly constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 a 2 the maximum, and typical, penalty for which is disbarment.
