in the Matter of Andre Keith Sanders

303 Ga. 293

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: March 5, 2018
• Docket: S18Y0383
• Status: Published

Opinion

303 Ga. 293 FINAL COPY

S18Y0383. IN THE MATTER OF ANDRE KEITH SANDERS.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of the Review Panel, which recommends that this Court impose

upon Andre Keith Sanders (State Bar No. 625241) a five-year suspension, with

conditions on reinstatement, as reciprocal discipline following the imposition of

a “Disciplinary Revocation of Admission” to practice in Florida. As recounted

by the Review Panel, Sanders, who has been a member of the Georgia Bar since

1972, was the subject of numerous disciplinary matters in Florida, principally but

not exclusively related to fraudulent debt collection practices. In response,

Sanders filed a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation with Leave to Apply for

Readmission, pursuant to Rule 3-7.12 of the rules regulating the Florida Bar. The

Florida Supreme Court accepted Sanders’s petition, imposing the disciplinary

revocation, which it noted is tantamount to disbarment, with leave to seek

readmission after five years. As a result of the imposition of this sanction by the

Florida courts, the Georgia Bar initiated reciprocal discipline proceedings against Sanders; although Sanders acknowledged service of the reciprocal

disciplinary matter, he has not filed a responsive pleading either below or before

this Court, rendering him in default.

Given Sanders’s default, the sole question before this Court in evaluating

this matter is, as it was in the proceedings before the Review Panel, the

appropriateness of the imposition of reciprocal discipline here. In addressing this

question, the Review Panel noted that Florida’s Rule 3-7.12 does not require an

admission of misconduct but does require an acknowledgment by the respondent

of a pending investigation, and moreover that the Florida Supreme Court has held

that disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment. The Review Panel

acknowledged that Georgia’s Rules do not have a provision allowing for an

attorney with a pending disciplinary matter to resign his license without a finding

or admission of misconduct, and further noted that several provisions of the

Georgia Rules seem to point to the importance of a finding or admission of

misconduct to the resolution of the disciplinary matter — namely Rules 4-227 (a),

9.4 (b) (5), and 9.4 (b) (3). The Review Panel concluded, however, that

Florida’s disciplinary revocation procedure was otherwise “essentially identical

to a petition for voluntary discipline in Georgia requesting either disbarment or

2 a lengthy suspension with readmission based on compliance with rules regulating

admission to the bar.” Based on these considerations, the Review Panel

concluded that the disciplinary revocation procedure was sufficient to warrant

the imposition of reciprocal discipline and recommended as sufficiently similar

reciprocal discipline a five-year suspension, with reinstatement in Georgia

conditioned on proof of compliance with the Florida Rules relating to admission

to the Bar and reinstatement to practice in Florida.

Our review of the record and the relevant law reveals that the Review

Panel was correct in reaching its conclusion regarding the applicability of the

reciprocal discipline procedure to the discipline imposed on Sanders by the

Florida court. This Court has previously recognized that “a ‘Disciplinary

Resignation’ in Florida — which included some admission of ‘guilt’ with regard

to alleged disciplinary rules violations — is the substantial equivalent to

Georgia’s voluntary surrender of license.” In the Matter of Fry, 300 Ga. 862, 865

(800 SE2d 514) (2017), citing In the Matter of Davidson, 269 Ga. 901 (506 SE2d

869) (1998). According to the official comment to Rule 3-7.12 of the Florida

Rules, the disciplinary revocation rule under which Sanders proceeded in the

Florida matter giving rise to this case replaced the earlier “disciplinary

3 resignation” rule, but nonetheless is “tantamount to disbarment.” In rejecting the

“Petition for Voluntary Resolution,” filed by the respondent in Fry in order to

resign his license to practice law in Georgia, this Court noted Fry’s intention to

resign without admitting his violation of the disciplinary rules of the Georgia Bar,

contrasting this with its prior acceptance of the Florida “disciplinary resignation”

procedure, which “included some admission of ‘guilt’ with regard to alleged

disciplinary rules violations,” as the substantial equivalent to Georgia’s voluntary

surrender of license procedure. Fry, 300 Ga. at 865.

Our acceptance of a resignation procedure in Davidson, together with our

rejection of a resignation procedure in Fry, could be read to suggest that the

presence (Davidson) or absence (Fry) of an admission of guilt as part of the

resignation procedure is determinative of whether that procedure is sufficiently

similar to discipline available under the Georgia Rules. However, the

circumstances in Fry differed materially from those present in this case, as to the

purpose and effect of the resignation of license.1 In Fry, we noted that “Fry is not

1 One of the other differences between Fry and Davidson is that Davidson arose, as does this case, from a petition for reciprocal discipline, whereas Fry involved the question of whether this Court should adopt a resignation procedure for a violation of the Georgia Disciplinary Rules. However, that difference was not dispositive of the result in Fry, and the different inquiries are actually relevantly similar insofar as both concerned whether the resignation procedure at issue was consonant with general principles of Georgia’s disciplinary law.

4 requesting permission to voluntarily surrender his license in the face of pending

disciplinary matters . . . [i]nstead, he appears to be requesting that his

professional record be scrubbed of any indications of disciplinary problems and

that he be allowed to resign with a clear disciplinary record[.]” Id. We further

noted that, should Fry have “chose[n] to apply for admission in other jurisdictions

in future years, he would be able to truthfully report that he has no disciplinary

record in Georgia.” Id. By contrast, the acceptance of this petition for reciprocal

discipline would not result in any such “scrubbing,” as Sanders’s Georgia

disciplinary record would reflect his suspension for this matter. Thus, as the

procedure under which Sanders was sanctioned in Florida is tantamount to

disbarment, and as the considerations motivating this Court’s rejection of the

petition in Fry because of the lack of an admission of guilt are not present here,

the imposition of reciprocal discipline is appropriate in this matter.

Therefore, this Court agrees with the Review Panel’s recommendation that

a five-year suspension with conditions on readmission is the appropriate sanction

in this reciprocal discipline matter. Accordingly, we direct that Andre Keith

Sanders be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Georgia for five

years. At the conclusion of the suspension imposed in this matter, if Sanders

5 wishes to seek reinstatement, he must offer proof to the State Bar’s Office of

General Counsel that he is eligible to be or has been reinstated to the practice of

law in Florida. If the State Bar agrees that this condition has been met, the State

Bar will submit a notice of compliance to this Court, and this Court will issue an

order granting or denying reinstatement.

Sanders is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Five-year suspension with conditions for reinstatement. All the Justices

concur.

Decided March 5, 2018.

Suspension.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman,

Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of

6 Georgia.