Per Curiam. These disciplinary matters are before the Court on two Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar of Georgia’s State Disciplinary Board (“the Board”) against Respondent Ryan Curtis Cleveland (State Bar No. 142377). The Notices of Discipline arise out of Cleveland’s misconduct in the representation and abandonment of eight clients.[1] Cleveland, who was admitted to the State Bar in 2005, is currently suspended as a result of his failure to respond to the Notice of Investigation underlying S23Y0688. See Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a), (d); Case No. S23Y0560 (Jan. 27, 2023). Additionally, Cleveland received a formal letter of admonition in January 2022 for misconduct similar to the misconduct charged here.[2] We agree that Cleveland’s history of abandonment of clients and failure to participate in the disciplinary process warrants his disbarment. Cleveland was properly served with the Notice of Discipline in each matter, but has not filed a Notice of Rejection in either case. Therefore, he is in default and has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). Additionally, by virtue of his default, the facts alleged in the Notices of Discipline are deemed admitted. See, e.g., In the Matter of Bonnell, 316 Ga. 460, 460 (888 SE2d 523) (2023); In the Matter of Blain, 315 Ga. 475, 476 (883 SE2d 315) (2023). The facts, as deemed admitted, are as follows. In the matter underlying State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7679, a client hired Cleveland in August 2019 to represent him in a divorce and custody case and paid Cleveland a $2,600 retainer. The client asked Cleveland to seek a temporary parenting plan so that he could have visitation with his daughter, whom he had not seen since June 2019. Cleveland failed to file any pleadings or motions in the client’s case; failed to conduct discovery; refused to communicate with the client despite the client’s repeated attempts; failed to notify the client that a final bench trial had been scheduled in August 2022; and failed to return the unearned fee. With regard to each of the other seven matters, Cleveland was assigned to represent an indigent defendant pursuant to a contract with a county’s public defender office. Cleveland failed to communicate with the clients, who were all incarcerated; failed to respond to requests for information from the clients and their families; failed to file any substantive pleadings or motions for bond in the clients’ cases; and repeatedly misled one client and the client’s family about the status of the client’s case. Additionally, Cleveland failed to notify his clients or the trial courts that he was suspended from the practice of law in January 2023 and was no longer able to represent them. Based on these facts, the Board found probable cause to believe that Cleveland committed a single violation of Rule 1.5[3] and multiple violations of Rules 1.1,[4] 1.2,[5] 1.3,[6] 1.4,[7] 1.16 (a) and (c),[8] 3.2,[9]8.4 (a) (4),[10] and 9.3[11] of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).[12] The maximum penalty for a single violation of any one of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, while the maximum penalty for a single violation of any one of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the Board appropriately considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, including the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. See In the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353, 354 (456 SE2d 52) (1995), superseded by Rule on other grounds as stated in In the Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 206, 214-215 (857 SE2d 212) (2021). We agree with the Board’s determination that the following factors should be considered in aggravation: Cleveland’s prior disciplinary record; his pattern of misconduct; his commission of multiple offenses; the vulnerability of his clients; his substantial experience in the practice of law; and his indifference to making restitution to the client in SDBD No. 7679.[13] See ABA Standard 9.22 (a), (c), (d), (h)-(j). We have identified no factors in mitigation.[14] Having reviewed the records in both cases, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Cleveland’s misconduct in these matters and is consistent with the sanction imposed in similar cases. See In the Matter of Proctor, 313 Ga. 637 (872 SE2d 691) (2022) (disbarring attorney who abandoned clients in civil and criminal matters and was found in default in disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859 (854 SE2d 731) (2021) (disbarring attorney who abandoned client in criminal matter and was found in default in disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Larson, 305 Ga. 522 (826 SE2d 99) (2019) (disbarring attorney who abandoned clients in criminal matters and was found in default in disciplinary proceedings). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Ryan Curtis Cleveland be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Cleveland is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b). Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
