In re Hohnadel

452 S.E.2d 509, 264 Ga. 864, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 388, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 30, 1995
DocketS94Y1350
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 452 S.E.2d 509 (In re Hohnadel) 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 Hohnadel, 452 S.E.2d 509, 264 Ga. 864, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 388, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 34 (Ga. 1995).

Opinion

Per curiam.

A Notice of Investigation was issued against Steven R. Hohnadel after Greg Singleton filed a grievance against Hohnadel with the State Bar of Georgia. Singleton alleged that he paid Hohnadel $300 to file a contempt action for him. Hohnadel failed to take any action on behalf of Singleton and consistently failed to return Singleton’s repeated telephone calls. Hohnadel finally met with Singleton and refunded a portion of the money paid, but failed to refund the balance.

After the Investigative Panel issued the Notice of Investigation, Hohnadel failed to respond. The Investigative Panel then directed the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar to file a Notice of Discipline imposing disbarment against Hohnadel. The Notice of Discipline found that Hohnadel violated Standards 4 (engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, etc.), 21, 22 and 23 (failing to follow requirements regarding withdrawal from employment), 44 (abandoning a client matter), 45 (knowingly engaging in illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a disciplinary rule), 61 (failing to deliver funds to a client), 63 (failing to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding funds), 65 (failing to account for trust property held in a fiduciary capacity), and 68 (failing to respond to disciplinary authorities) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Hohnadel, after being personally served with the Notice of Discipline, has failed to respond.

After considering the record in this case and Hohnadel’s prior [865]*865disciplinary actions,1 we hereby order that Hohnadel is disbarred from the practice of law in Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c) to timely notify all clients of his inability to represent them, to take all actions necessary to protect the interests of his clients, and to certify to this Court that he has satisfied the requirements of such rule.

Decided January 30, 1995. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittleman, Senior Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

Disbarred.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Mobley v. State
452 S.E.2d 500 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 S.E.2d 509, 264 Ga. 864, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 388, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hohnadel-ga-1995.