This matter is before the Court on the Report of the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board recommending that Respondent Eric B. Reuss be suspended from the practice of law for two years for his violations of Standards 4 a lawyer shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or wilful misrepresentation and 65 A a lawyer shall not commingle his client’s funds with his own, and shall not fail to account for trust property, including money and interest paid on the client’s money, if any, held in any fiduciary capacity of Bar Rule 4-102 d. Subsequent to the State Bar’s issuance of a Formal Complaint against Reuss alleging violations of Standards 4 and 65 A of Bar Rule 4-102 d, and Reuss’ filing of an answer, the State Bar moved for summary judgment, which the special master granted in part. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the special master filed his report finding that Reuss violated Standards 4 and 65 A of Bar Rule 4-102 d and recommending a two-year suspension. Both the State Bar and Reuss requested review by the Review Panel, which adopted the special master’s findings and recommendation of a two-year suspension. The State Bar timely filed written exceptions to the report, reasserting the issues raised in its exceptions to the special master’s report. Reuss also filed exceptions to the report and a request for oral argument, which is hereby denied. See Bar Rule 4-219 a. Accordingly, this Court now may enter judgment in this case.
Reuss, who lives in Alabama but who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1976, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of a client in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in February 1996 and, from that date until the appointment of a trustee in December 1997, represented the client in its capacity as a Chapter 11 debtor. Although the bankruptcy court’s approval was required for the client to retain Reuss, Reuss failed to file the appropriate application for employment in the matter, and neither Reuss nor the client ever obtained the bankruptcy court’s approval of Reuss’ representation.
