In Re Powell

Supreme Court of Georgia

In Re Powell

683 S.E.2d 613, 285 Ga. 812, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3060, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 481

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 2009

DocketS09Y1375

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 683 S.E.2d 613 (In Re Powell) 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 Powell, 683 S.E.2d 613, 285 Ga. 812, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3060, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 481 (Ga. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

George E. Powell, Jr., has filed a petition for voluntary discipline in which he admits that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and asks for a suspension of between six months and three years. The State Bar has requested that Powell be suspended for three years.

Powell admits that in connection with six related real estate closings, which he handled on behalf of a lender, he prepared HUD-1 settlement statements that did not accurately represent the transactions and thus misrepresented the details of the transactions. Specifically, he indicated that funds not paid to the seller were to be paid to one lender as the seller’s lender, but failed to indicate that those net funds were actually being held on behalf of the seller for *813 ultimate payment to a different lender. Subsequent HUD-1 statements for the same closings indicated that the funds were being attributed either to the seller or to payment of the mortgage without specifying a particular lender. After three civil actions were filed related to the properties at issue, the parties resolved the matter through mediation, Powell’s clients were placed in the first lien position on the properties as intended, and all funds were distributed according to the terms of the mediation agreement.

Decided September 28, 2009. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. Dominy & Hills, Michael A. Dominy, for Powell.

Although the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, the record shows the existence of the following mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a selfish motive, a cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, good character, and remorse. Having considered the record and similar cases, we conclude that a suspension of three years is the appropriate sanction in this case. See In the Matter of Moore, 277 Ga. 540 (592 SE2d 409) (2004); In the Matter of Vaughn, 277 Ga. 33 (585 SE2d 881) (2003).

Accordingly, the Court accepts the petition for voluntary discipline and directs that George E. Powell, Jr., be suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective as of the date of this opinion. Powell is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Three-year suspension.

All the Justices concur.

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

Per curiam.

George E. Powell, Jr., has filed a petition for voluntary discipline in which he admits that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and asks for a suspension of between six months and three years. The State Bar has requested that Powell be suspended for three years.

Powell admits that in connection with six related real estate closings, which he handled on behalf of a lender, he prepared HUD-1 settlement statements that did not accurately represent the transactions and thus misrepresented the details of the transactions. Specifically, he indicated that funds not paid to the seller were to be paid to one lender as the seller’s lender, but failed to indicate that those net funds were actually being held on behalf of the seller for *813 ultimate payment to a different lender. Subsequent HUD-1 statements for the same closings indicated that the funds were being attributed either to the seller or to payment of the mortgage without specifying a particular lender. After three civil actions were filed related to the properties at issue, the parties resolved the matter through mediation, Powell’s clients were placed in the first lien position on the properties as intended, and all funds were distributed according to the terms of the mediation agreement.

Decided September 28, 2009. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. Dominy & Hills, Michael A. Dominy, for Powell.

Although the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, the record shows the existence of the following mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a selfish motive, a cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, good character, and remorse. Having considered the record and similar cases, we conclude that a suspension of three years is the appropriate sanction in this case. See In the Matter of Moore, 277 Ga. 540 (592 SE2d 409) (2004); In the Matter of Vaughn, 277 Ga. 33 (585 SE2d 881) (2003).

Accordingly, the Court accepts the petition for voluntary discipline and directs that George E. Powell, Jr., be suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective as of the date of this opinion. Powell is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Three-year suspension.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 S.E.2d 613, 285 Ga. 812, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3060, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-powell-ga-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack