In re Ross

599 S.E.2d 185, 278 Ga. 213, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2345, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 545
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 12, 2004
DocketS04Y0844
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 599 S.E.2d 185 (In re Ross) 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 Ross, 599 S.E.2d 185, 278 Ga. 213, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2345, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 545 (Ga. 2004).

Opinion

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Notice of Discipline filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 against Respondent Eric Vann Ross and to which he failed to respond. After an investigation, the State Bar filed the notice charging Ross with violating Rules 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.15 (I), 1.16 (d), 8.4, and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar properly served Ross by publication in accordance with Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), but he did not reject the notice as required by Bar Rule 4-208.3. Accordingly, Ross is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to discipline by this Court, under Bar Rule 4-208.1.

The facts as deemed admitted show that a client hired Ross to represent him in a matter and Ross settled the case for $20,000 and [214]*214dismissed it with prejudice without consulting the client. He deposited the settlement funds into his bank account and told the client the case had been settled for $18,000. Ross has failed to deliver the settlement funds to his client or to render an accounting to his client regarding the funds.

Decided July 12, 2004. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

We agree with the State Bar that Ross should be disbarred for his violations of the rules set forth above. Accordingly, we hereby order that Eric Vann Ross be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

In Re Ballew
695 S.E.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 S.E.2d 185, 278 Ga. 213, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2345, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ross-ga-2004.