The State Bar filed four Notices of Discipline against Respondent Wayne P. Thigpen alleging violations of Standards 4 a lawyer shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or wilful misrepresentation; 22 b a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until he has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his client, including giving due notice to his client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled and complying with applicable laws and rules; 23 a lawyer who withdraws from employment shall refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned; and 44 a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of his client in effect wilfully abandon or wilfully disregard a legal matter entrusted to him of Bar Rule 4-102 d in each of the four disciplinary actions. Thigpen was personally served with the Notices of Discipline on July 18, 2000. Upon Thigpen’s failure to respond to the Notices within the time set by Bar Rule 4-208.3 a, Thigpen was in default pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 b, had no right to an evidentiary hearing, and was subject to discipline by this Court. On August 29, 2000, the State Bar filed a Proof of Service of the Notice of Discipline; Motion for Issuance of Order in each of the disciplinary actions asking this Court to adopt the Notices of Discipline. The State Bar recommended disbarment as an appropriate sanction in each of the disciplinary actions for Thigpen’s violations of Standards 4, 22 b, 23, and 44 of Bar Rule 4-102 d.
On September 15 and 22, 2000, respectively, Thigpen’s attorney, Jay Sawilowsky, filed a response and a supplemental response to the Notices of Discipline noting that in January 2000 this Court accepted from Thigpen a Petition for Voluntary Discipline of indefinite suspension with conditions, see In the Matter of Thigpen, 272 Ga. 45 526 SE2d 839 2000. As the petition was based on Thigpen’s acknowledged mental illness and supported by a medical report, Sawilowsky claims that the State Bar was aware of Thigpen’s condition and of Sawilowsky’s legal representation of Thigpen and thus should have presented Sawilowsky with courtesy copies of the Notices of Discipline when the Notices were served on Thigpen. Sawilowsky further asserts that he sent letters to the former clients who are the subjects of these disciplinary matters on July 6, 2000, enclosed reimbursement checks to three of the grievants for the fees paid to Thigpen, and asked the fourth grievant to inform Sawilowsky as to the fee paid in order to receive reimbursement, but she did not respond. According to Sawilowsky, although the State Bar was copied on the letters and was reminded of the reimbursements and Sawilowsky’s representation of Thigpen in subsequent communications, the State Bar proceeded with its Motions for Issuance of Order seeking disbarment based, at least in part, on Thigpen’s failure to reimburse the client fees. Sawilowsky asks this Court to deny the State Bar’s Motions and remand the disciplinary matter to the State Bar for further consideration. The State Bar, in its response filed on September 19, 2000, asserts that Thigpen has failed to observe proper procedure for requesting to open the default under OCGA § 9-11-55 b or for rejecting the Notices of Discipline in that Thigpen has not put forth a meritorious defense, does not deny the allegations made against him, and has not filed written responses to the following grievances.
