This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Respondent Douglas Harry Pike’s Petition for Voluntary Discipline, filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-210 d and 4-227 c, in which Pike admits violating Standards 22 withdrawing from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client; 44 wilful abandonment or disregard of a legal matter to the client’s detriment; and 68 failure to respond to disciplinary authorities of Bar Rule 4-102 d. Pike filed his petition in response to two formal complaints State Disciplinary Board “SDB” docket numbers 3657 and 3929 filed against him by the State Bar of Georgia, which complaints charged him with violating various standards of Bar Rule 4-102 d. Pike defaulted in SDB docket number 3657 and was ordered disbarred by this Court on February 8, 1999. On motion for reconsideration, however, this Court set aside its disbarment order and suspended Pike indefinitely pursuant to reconsideration orders entered May 19, 1999 and June 11, 1999. This case was then remanded to the special master for an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, however, Pike presented the instant petition for voluntary discipline. In SDB docket number 3929, Pike acknowledged service of the formal complaint, but in lieu of an answer presented this petition for voluntary discipline, as allowed by Bar Rule 4-212 d. Pike’s petition for voluntary discipline was submitted on the condition that it be construed to dispose of the charges in both disciplinary proceedings. Although a violation of Standard 44 is punishable by disbarment, Pike asks this Court to impose a one-year suspension effective January 1, 2000, with reinstatement upon the conditions set forth below, as an appropriate discipline. As noted by the State Bar in its response to Pike’s petition, this Court has previously found a suspension with conditions to be an appropriate sanction where a lawyer has admitted violations of Standards 22, 44, and 68 in several consolidated disciplinary cases. See In the Matter of Wittes, 267 Ga. 52, 53 472 SE2d 429 1996. Both the State Bar and the special master recommend that this Court accept Pike’s petition for voluntary discipline in which he makes the following admissions:
In SDB Docket No. 3657, Pike admits that he agreed to represent a client in litigation involving alleged construction defects to the client’s home. He acknowledges that he failed to properly communicate with the client about developments in the litigation and did not properly and timely answer discovery. As a result, the trial court judge dismissed the client’s case. Pike further admits that he failed to answer a Notice of Investigation in this matter, despite acknowledging service. He agrees that his conduct in handling this client’s case violated Standards 44 and 68 of Bar Rule 4-102 d.
