In re Kent

Supreme Court of Georgia

In re Kent

585 S.E.2d 878, 277 Ga. 27, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3656, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 701

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 2003

DocketS03Y1313

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 585 S.E.2d 878 (In re Kent) 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 Kent, 585 S.E.2d 878, 277 Ga. 27, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3656, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 701 (Ga. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Respondent L. B. Kent’s Amended Answer and Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) after the State Bar’s issuance of a Formal Complaint. In his petition, Kent seeks the imposition of a one-[28]*28year suspension for his admitted violation of Standard 45 (f)¹ (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not institute, cause to be instituted or settle a legal proceeding or claim without obtaining proper authorization from the client) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The special master and the State Bar recommend that this Court accept Kent’s petition.

Decided September 8, 2003. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Kellyn O. McGee, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. D. Lake Rumsey, Jr., for Kent.

In his amended petition, Kent admits that after successfully representing a client in a personal injury suit, he subsequently filed a lawsuit in 1998 on his own behalf and on behalf of the client seeking recovery of his earned attorneys’ fees against others, including another attorney, who had obtained access to the money paid in satisfaction of the personal injury action judgment. Kent further admits that he instituted the legal proceeding on behalf of his client without obtaining proper authorization from the client and that his conduct constituted a violation of Standard 45 (f), which is punishable by disbarment.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the State Bar and special master that a one-year suspension is the appropriate discipline to be imposed in this matter. Accordingly, we accept Kent’s amended petition for voluntary discipline. Kent hereby is barred from the practice of law in Georgia for a period of one year from the date of this opinion. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

One-year suspension.

All the Justices concur.

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 Respondent L. B. Kent’s Amended Answer and Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) after the State Bar’s issuance of a Formal Complaint. In his petition, Kent seeks the imposition of a one-[28]*28year suspension for his admitted violation of Standard 45 (f)¹ (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not institute, cause to be instituted or settle a legal proceeding or claim without obtaining proper authorization from the client) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The special master and the State Bar recommend that this Court accept Kent’s petition.

Decided September 8, 2003. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Kellyn O. McGee, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. D. Lake Rumsey, Jr., for Kent.

In his amended petition, Kent admits that after successfully representing a client in a personal injury suit, he subsequently filed a lawsuit in 1998 on his own behalf and on behalf of the client seeking recovery of his earned attorneys’ fees against others, including another attorney, who had obtained access to the money paid in satisfaction of the personal injury action judgment. Kent further admits that he instituted the legal proceeding on behalf of his client without obtaining proper authorization from the client and that his conduct constituted a violation of Standard 45 (f), which is punishable by disbarment.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the State Bar and special master that a one-year suspension is the appropriate discipline to be imposed in this matter. Accordingly, we accept Kent’s amended petition for voluntary discipline. Kent hereby is barred from the practice of law in Georgia for a period of one year from the date of this opinion. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

One-year suspension.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 S.E.2d 878, 277 Ga. 27, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3656, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kent-ga-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack