This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the “Report of Special Master” in which the special master recommends suspending Respondent David G. Hammock for a period of no less than six months for his violation of Standard 44 in three separate disciplinary board cases, and his violations of Standard 4 of Bar Rule 4-102 d and Rule 8.4 a 4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, in one of the three matters. Neither party filed a request for a Review Panel review of the report and, therefore, the parties are deemed to have waived any right to file exceptions or seek oral argument before the Court, see Bar Rule 4-217 c. In the first two matters, this Court previously rejected imposition of a public reprimand, see Case No. S02Y0191. After an evidentiary hearing on all three cases the special master issued his report and recommendation. We believe that more than a six-month suspension is warranted under the circumstances in this case. In SDB Docket No. 4123, Hammock agreed to represent a client on a contempt motion in a divorce case. The trial court issued two orders —one finding the client in contempt and ordering him to make certain payments, and the other two months later ordering the client to pay half of his Army separation pay to his ex-wife. The second order was entered without a hearing and sent to counsel. Hammock never told his client about the second order, however, and in the meantime, the client re-enlisted with the Army. When he received notice of another hearing in the case, the client called Hammock to see if he needed to be present, but Hammock told him he did not need to appear because the hearing would be continued. Late in the day before the hearing, Hammock faxed a request for continuance under the Soldier and Sailor’s Relief Act. At the hearing, the trial court denied the motion, which contained several misstatements indicating it had been cut and pasted from another similar motion, and found the client in willful contempt of the two previous orders. The client obtained new counsel who resolved the matter within a few months. We find that Hammock violated Standard 44 for failing to send his client a copy of the second order and failing to counsel his client.
In the second case, SDB Docket No. 4227, Hammock agreed to obtain a name change for a client’s minor son for a fee of $450, which the client paid part of in installments. Between February 2000, when the client hired Hammock, and July 2000, Hammock did not communicate with his client, although he had been working on her case. In July, he told the client that he had filed the case, but that the local paper had not published it as required. The client later discovered that Hammock never requested that the paper publish the name change. After the client filed a grievance with the State Bar, Hammock finalized the name change and refunded the fees the client paid him. Based on this conduct, we conclude that Hammock violated Standard 44 by disregarding the matter and failing to communicate with his client.
