In re Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

In re Smith

424 S.E.2d 283, 262 Ga. 656, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 153, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 56

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1993

DocketSupreme Court Disciplinary No. 930

StatusPublished

This text of 424 S.E.2d 283 (In re Smith) 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 Smith, 424 S.E.2d 283, 262 Ga. 656, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 153, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 56 (Ga. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations while making applications for adjustment of immigration status pursuant to 8 USC § 1255a. See 8 USC § 1255a (c) (6); 18 USC §§ 2 and 371. He has not appealed that conviction. He was personally served with a petition for appointment of a special master and was served by mail with notice of the hearing before the special master. No response has been forthcoming, and Respondent did not appear at the hearing held by the special master, who recommended that Respondent be disbarred for violation of Standard 66.

We adopt the recommendation of the special master and order Respondent disbarred from the practice of law in this state and that his name be stricken from the roll of those authorized to practice law in Georgia.

Clarke, C. J., Hunt, P. J., Benham, Fletcher, Sears-Collins and Hunstein, JJ., concur.

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

Per curiam.

Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations while making applications for adjustment of immigration status pursuant to 8 USC § 1255a. See 8 USC § 1255a (c) (6); 18 USC §§ 2 and 371. He has not appealed that conviction. He was personally served with a petition for appointment of a special master and was served by mail with notice of the hearing before the special master. No response has been forthcoming, and Respondent did not appear at the hearing held by the special master, who recommended that Respondent be disbarred for violation of Standard 66.

We adopt the recommendation of the special master and order Respondent disbarred from the practice of law in this state and that his name be stricken from the roll of those authorized to practice law in Georgia.

Clarke, C. J., Hunt, P. J., Benham, Fletcher, Sears-Collins and Hunstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 S.E.2d 283, 262 Ga. 656, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 153, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-ga-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack