Michael Grady Jenkins appeals the final decision of the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants the “Board” denying his certification for fitness to practice law. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. From January 1993 to December 2002, Jenkins served as the chief magistrate for Screven County, a full-time position.1 During that time Jenkins attended John Marshall Law School in Atlanta September 1997 to April 2000. In 2001 Jenkins applied for certification of fitness to practice law. His application disclosed that the Screven County Board of Commissioners had filed a complaint against him with the Judicial Qualifications Commission “JQC”, and that body had made a determination to issue a public reprimand. After Jenkins accepted the public reprimand,2 the Board requested an informal interview with him to obtain further information. Subsequent to that interview, three additional complaints were filed with the JQC; the Board tabled Jenkins’ application until those matters were resolved. In the interim, Jenkins resigned from his office as chief magistrate, and the JQC notified the Board that the three pending complaints against Jenkins had been closed. Thereafter, the Board independently investigated the conduct underlying the JQC reprimand, and tentatively denied Jenkins’ fitness application. The Board enumerated eight specifications which it determined “constitute a pattern of conduct that demonstrate a lack of integrity, character and the requisite moral fitness required of a prospective member of the State Bar of Georgia.”
Jenkins requested a formal hearing pursuant to the Supreme Court of Georgia Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, Pt. A, § 8 a. Following that evidentiary hearing, a hearing officer made the following findings: While attending law school, Jenkins was absent from his office as chief magistrate up to two days a week for two and one-half years while continuing to receive his full salary, thus requiring the county to incur the expense of appointing a deputy magistrate to perform Jenkins’ duties and also burdening the office of the district attorney; Jenkins refused a request from the county commissioners that he cease attending law school and return to his full-time duties; at the informal hearing before the Board, Jenkins denied that he neglected the business of his court while he was in school, thus disavowing what he had publicly acknowledged as part of the JQC reprimand —”this damages his candor and trustworthiness”; any admission of wrongdoing was “begrudging and qualified, at best”; Jenkins prepared legal documents for two individuals, and in so doing, he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; in failing to refer those individuals to an attorney, Jenkins “failed to demonstrate appropriate ethical cognizance and maturity”; Jenkins should have recognized that his conduct in this regard was “inappropriate”; although Jenkins conducted his insurance business from the magistrate’s office, such was “insignificant in amount”; allegations that Jenkins showed disrespect and lack of ethics toward litigants were not established; four of the five complaints filed against Jenkins by litigants in his court were dropped when Jenkins resigned as magistrate, and therefore were unproven allegations.
