In Re Brown

Supreme Court of Georgia

In Re Brown

629 S.E.2d 813, 280 Ga. 500, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1413, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 266

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 8, 2006

DocketS06Y0542

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 629 S.E.2d 813 (In Re Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Brown, 629 S.E.2d 813, 280 Ga. 500, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1413, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 266 (Ga. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Investigative Panel’s Notice of Discipline, recommending a Review Panel Reprimand for Brown’s violations of Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II), of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for each violation is disbarment. Brown acknowledged service of the notice of discipline, but did not file a notice of rejection within 30 days of service. Therefore, he is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and shall be subject to such discipline as this Court determines. Bar Rule 4-208.1. Because of Brown’s prior disciplinary infractions, we conclude that a Review Panel Reprimand is not an appropriate sanction and instead determine that disbarment is required.

The record shows that in February and March 2005, Brown issued two checks from his attorney trust account to make payments on his personal MasterCard account, and when confronted, simply blamed a secretary. Rule 1.15 (II) (b) specifically provides that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from [attorney] trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer maintaining the account.” The record contains no evidence that the funds have been restored, that Brown has properly maintained the account subsequently, or what actions, if any, Brown has taken to ensure proper handling of the account.

Furthermore, Brown has a lengthy disciplinary history: he received a private reprimand in 1984, a Public Reprimand in 1998 for wilful abandonment or disregard of a client’s legal matter, S97Y1690 (Jan. 7,1998), an interim suspension for failing to respond to a notice of investigation, S99Y0048 (Oct. 19,1998), and a two-year suspension in 2000, In the Matter of Brown, 272 Ga. 14 (524 SE2d 727) (2000). The suspension stemmed from Brown’s receipt of client funds in a fiduciary capacity, his personal use of those funds, and his failure to account for the funds. Brown, 272 Ga. at 14.

Because Brown has shown a consistent inability to properly maintain his trust account, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. It is hereby ordered that the name of Harvey C. Brown, Jr., be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Brown is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, J., who dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Investigative Panel’s Notice of Discipline, recommending a Review Panel Reprimand for Brown’s violations of Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II), of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for each violation is disbarment. Brown acknowledged service of the notice of discipline, but did not file a notice of rejection within 30 days of service. Therefore, he is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and shall be subject to such discipline as this Court determines. Bar Rule 4-208.1. Because of Brown’s prior disciplinary infractions, we conclude that a Review Panel Reprimand is not an appropriate sanction and instead determine that disbarment is required.

The record shows that in February and March 2005, Brown issued two checks from his attorney trust account to make payments on his personal MasterCard account, and when confronted, simply blamed a secretary. Rule 1.15 (II) (b) specifically provides that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from [attorney] trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer maintaining the account.” The record contains no evidence that the funds have been restored, that Brown has properly maintained the account subsequently, or what actions, if any, Brown has taken to ensure proper handling of the account.

Furthermore, Brown has a lengthy disciplinary history: he received a private reprimand in 1984, a Public Reprimand in 1998 for wilful abandonment or disregard of a client’s legal matter, S97Y1690 (Jan. 7,1998), an interim suspension for failing to respond to a notice of investigation, S99Y0048 (Oct. 19,1998), and a two-year suspension in 2000, In the Matter of Brown, 272 Ga. 14 (524 SE2d 727) (2000). The suspension stemmed from Brown’s receipt of client funds in a fiduciary capacity, his personal use of those funds, and his failure to account for the funds. Brown, 272 Ga. at 14.

Because Brown has shown a consistent inability to properly maintain his trust account, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. It is hereby ordered that the name of Harvey C. Brown, Jr., be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Brown is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 S.E.2d 813, 280 Ga. 500, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1413, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brown-ga-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack