Per Curiam. These disciplinary matters are before the Court on the report and recommendation of special master William Davis, who recommends that the Court accept the petition for voluntary discipline filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) by respondent Candace Lanette Sneed (State Bar No. 797458) after the filing of a formal complaint and that the Court impose a nine-month suspension with conditions, nunc pro tunc to May 1, 2020, as discipline for Sneed’s admitted violations of Rules 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information), and 9.3 (lawyer shall respond to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules during the investigation of a grievance) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rules 1.4 and 9.3 is a public reprimand. For the reasons discussed below, we accept Sneed’s petition for voluntary discipline. Following the filing by the Bar of formal complaints against Sneed, who has been a member of the Bar since 2013, as to four client matters, Sneed, in lieu of filing an answer to the complaints, filed this petition for voluntary discipline. In her petition, Sneed acknowledged her misconduct in these four matters, which she largely attributed to the effects of depression, for which she eventually sought treatment. Sneed sought a six-month suspension – or, in the alternative, a nine-month suspension – with the condition on her reinstatement that she provide a statement from a Board-certified psychologist to the Office of the General Counsel declaring her fitness to resume the practice of law. The Bar filed a response to the petition, recommending acceptance of the petition and the imposition of a nine-month suspension. Sneed then filed an amended petition, requesting that any discipline be imposed nunc pro tunc to May 1, 2020. As recited by the special master, as to State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7348, Sneed violated Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence in her failure to file a lawsuit and countersuit on behalf of her clients, violated Rule 1.4 by failing to inform those clients about the status of their matter and by failing to communicate with them for an extended period, and violated Rule 9.3 by failing to respond to the Bar during the investigation of the grievance underlying that matter. Regarding No. 7349, Sneed violated Rule 1.3 by failing to pay a fee to transfer her client’s case between courts, which resulted in the dismissal of the client’s case; by failing to notify the client of the dismissal; and by abandoning the client when she moved her office without notice to the client of the move or her new address. Sneed violated Rule 1.4 by failing to communicate with or respond to the client for an extended period of time. Concerning SDBD No. 7350, Sneed violated Rule 1.3 by failing to promptly file a lawsuit on a client’s behalf and violated Rule 1.4 when she failed to communicate with the client regarding the status of the client’s case. Finally, as to SDBD No. 7351, Sneed violated Rule 1.3 by dismissing a lawsuit that she had filed on the client’s behalf without her client’s knowledge or consent and violated Rule 1.4 by failing to consult with and obtain consent from the client prior to dismissing the lawsuit and by her failure to notify the client about a pending trial in that matter.[1] In addressing the question of the appropriate sanction to be imposed as to these matters, the special master considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). The special master noted that, according to ABA Standard 3.0, when imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, a court should consider: 1) the duty violated; 2) the lawyer’s mental state; 3) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and 4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. The special master concluded that Sneed had violated duties that she owed to her clients to be diligent and to communicate, which violations resulted in the clients suffering financial injuries created by their need to locate and retain new counsel in order to resolve their cases. As to Sneed’s mental state, the special master concluded that Sneed’s conduct in these four matters demonstrated that she knowingly failed to perform the legal services for which she was retained, particularly given the similarity of her conduct in each matter, but also acknowledged Sneed’s assertions that she was “overwhelmed” or “always worried” while representing her clients. With regard to the injury caused by Sneed’s misconduct, the special master pointed to the loss of funds by clients caused by Sneed’s retention of attorney fees paid to her until she later refunded them; stated that the clients’ financial losses included not only fees paid to Sneed but fees paid to obtain new counsel; and noted that Sneed’s delayed restitution payments did not account for additional fees for new counsel or address her delay in fulfilling clients’ refund requests. In aggravation of discipline, the special master noted Sneed’s experience in the practice of law, her pattern of misconduct, and her failure to refund fees when requested to do so by her clients. In mitigation, the special master cited Sneed’s lack of prior disciplinary history, the fact that she sought counseling, the fact that she expressed remorse, and the letters that she submitted attesting to her good character and reputation. In conclusion, the special master recommended that this Court accept Sneed’s petition and impose a nine-month suspension with the above-mentioned condition on reinstatement. Having reviewed the record, we accept Sneed’s petition for voluntary discipline and hereby impose a suspension of nine months with reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with the above- referenced condition. See generally In the Matter of Kirby, 312 Ga. 341 (862 SE2d 550) (2021) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in four separate matters, where attorney addressed his mental health and practice management problems); In the Matter of Johnson, 303 Ga. 795 (815 SE2d 55) (2018) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.16 (d), and Rule 5.5 (a) in seven separate matters, where attorney was suffering from personal and emotional problems at time of misconduct and had taken intervening efforts to improve himself and his law practice); In the Matter of Huggins, 291 Ga. 92 (727 SE2d 500) (2012) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension with conditions for reinstatement for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, and 9.3 in five client matters, where attorney had no prior disciplinary history and was receiving treatment for his personal issues). Furthermore, as the record shows that Sneed voluntarily ceased the practice of law as of May 1, 2020, we agree with the special master’s recommendation to impose her nine-month suspension nunc pro tunc to that date. See In the Matter of Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 157 (702 SE2d 136) (2010) (stating that “when an attorney requests entry of a suspension or voluntary surrender order nunc pro tunc, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to demonstrate that they voluntarily stopped practicing law, the date on which their law practice ended, and that they complied with all the ethical obligations implicated in such a decision, such as assisting clients in securing new counsel and facilitating the transfer of client files and critical information about ongoing cases to new counsel”). Sneed may seek reinstatement by demonstrating to the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel that she has met the condition of reinstatement.[2] If the State Bar agrees that the condition has been met, it will submit a notice of compliance to this Court, and this Court will issue an order granting or denying reinstatement. Sneed is reminded of her duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (b). Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Nine-month suspension. All the Justices concur.
