In Re Vogel

Supreme Court of Georgia

In Re Vogel

620 S.E.2d 389, 279 Ga. 719, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 641

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

DocketS05Y1082, S05Y1083, S05Y1084, S05Y1085

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 620 S.E.2d 389 (In Re Vogel) 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 Vogel, 620 S.E.2d 389, 279 Ga. 719, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 641 (Ga. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to four Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Vogel, who was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1985, violated Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4,1.16 and 9.3of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2 or 1.3 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.16 or 9.3 is a public reprimand.

Although each notice of discipline deals with a different client, each shows that Vogel agreed to represent a client in a legal matter; that he essentially abandoned each client, doing little or no work on their cases and refusing or failing to return their calls and their files, despite requests that he do so; and that Vogel failed or refused to respond to inquiries from his former law firm regarding the status of these clients’ cases. It appears that Vogel essentially has abandoned the practice of law without advising any of these clients. In each of these cases, Vogel was properly served with a Notice of Investigation by publication, but he failed or refused to answer the Notice of Investigation. Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that Vogel had violated Rules 1.4 and 9.3 in all four cases; Rule

1.2 in two cases; and Rules 1.3 and 1.16 in three cases. The Investigative Panel properly served Vogel with Notices of Discipline recommending that he be disbarred and, as Vogel has failed to reject those Notices pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), these matters are now ripe for review by this Court.

We have reviewed the files in each of these matters and find in aggravation, that Vogel has multiple violations in each case and that multiple disciplinary matters are being pursued simultaneously, thereby evidencing a pattern and practice of wrongful behavior on Vogel’s part. Thus, although Vogel has no prior disciplinary history, we believe that the circumstances of this case warrant disbarment. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of James R. Vogel be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Vogel 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

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to four Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Vogel, who was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1985, violated Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4,1.16 and 9.3of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2 or 1.3 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.16 or 9.3 is a public reprimand.

Although each notice of discipline deals with a different client, each shows that Vogel agreed to represent a client in a legal matter; that he essentially abandoned each client, doing little or no work on their cases and refusing or failing to return their calls and their files, despite requests that he do so; and that Vogel failed or refused to respond to inquiries from his former law firm regarding the status of these clients’ cases. It appears that Vogel essentially has abandoned the practice of law without advising any of these clients. In each of these cases, Vogel was properly served with a Notice of Investigation by publication, but he failed or refused to answer the Notice of Investigation. Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that Vogel had violated Rules 1.4 and 9.3 in all four cases; Rule

1.2 in two cases; and Rules 1.3 and 1.16 in three cases. The Investigative Panel properly served Vogel with Notices of Discipline recommending that he be disbarred and, as Vogel has failed to reject those Notices pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), these matters are now ripe for review by this Court.

We have reviewed the files in each of these matters and find in aggravation, that Vogel has multiple violations in each case and that multiple disciplinary matters are being pursued simultaneously, thereby evidencing a pattern and practice of wrongful behavior on Vogel’s part. Thus, although Vogel has no prior disciplinary history, we believe that the circumstances of this case warrant disbarment. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of James R. Vogel be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Vogel is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 S.E.2d 389, 279 Ga. 719, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-vogel-ga-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack