NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 17, 2026
S26Y0233. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES BRUCE SINGLETON, JR.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (“Review
Board”), which reviewed the report and recommendation of Special
Master Chong J. Kim at the request of Charles Bruce Singleton, Jr.
(State Bar No. 649057), who has been a member of the State Bar
since 1996. The Review Board agreed with the Special Master that
Singleton violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.16(d), 3.5(d),
and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”
or “Rules”) found in Bar Rule 4-102(d) in connection with three client
matters and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for
Singleton’s violations. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 3.5(d) is a public reprimand, whereas the
maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.15(I)(a), and
8.4(a)(4) is disbarment. Although Singleton filed exceptions to the
Special Master’s report and recommendation before the Review
Board, he has not filed exceptions to the Review Board’s report and
recommendation before this Court. After our review of the record,
we agree that disbarment from the practice of law is the appropriate
sanction.
1. Procedural History
On November 29, 2023, the State Bar filed two formal
complaints in connection with two client matters, charging
Singleton with several Rule violations. In State Disciplinary Board
(“SDB”) Docket No. 7664, the State Bar alleged that Singleton was
hired to represent a client in a probate matter and stopped
communicating with the client and performing work in his case. The
State Bar charged Singleton with violations of Rules 1.2(a) (a lawyer
shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives
of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means
2 by which they are to be pursued); 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 1.4(a)
(a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status
of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information); and 1.16(d) (upon termination of representation, a
lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practical to protect
a client’s interests, including refunding any advance payment of fee
that has not been earned). In SDB Docket No. 7665, the State Bar
alleged that Singleton was hired to represent a client in a lawsuit
filed against her arising out of an outstanding credit card balance
and stopped communicating with the client and performing work in
her case. The State Bar charged Singleton with violations of Rules
1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a). Singleton timely filed his responses, in which
he admitted violating Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) in SDB Docket No.
7664. Singleton denied violating the other Rules with which he was
charged.
On March 14, 2024, the State Bar filed a third formal
complaint against Singleton (SDB Docket No. 7830), in which it
3 alleged that Singleton was hired to represent a minor in a personal
injury action, failed to release settlement funds in his possession
despite multiple court orders directing him to do so, and stopped
communicating with the conservator for the minor. The State Bar
charged Singleton with violations of Rules 1.15(I)(a) (a lawyer shall
hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a
lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate
from the lawyer’s own funds); 3.5(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal); and 8.4(a)(4) (it shall be a
violation of the GRPC for a lawyer to engage in professional conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Singleton
acknowledged service of the complaint. However, he failed to timely
file an answer as required by Bar Rule 4-212(a), and the State Bar
filed a motion for default. Singleton filed a response to the State
Bar’s default motion, in which he stated that he had a meritorious
defense to the Rule 3.5(d) violation because he did not “intend” to
disrupt the tribunal. On June 27, 2024, the Special Master granted
the motion for default, explaining that Singelton did not file a
4 verified answer to the formal complaint nor did he provide any facts
which would provide a basis for opening the default. Singleton did
not further challenge the grant of default and later testified that he
had no defense to the allegations in the formal complaint.
The Special Master then scheduled an evidentiary hearing in
SDB Docket Nos. 7664 and 7665 and a hearing on mitigating and
aggravating circumstances in SDB Docket No. 7830. Following these
hearings, the Special Master issued her report and recommendation.
2. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation
(a) Factual Findings
(i) SDB Docket No. 7664
In November 2020, the client hired Singleton to probate his
mother’s will. Per the retainer agreement, Singleton quoted the
client $2,500 for the representation, and the client paid Singleton a
$1,000 initial payment. On November 20, 2020, Singleton filed in
the probate court a petition to probate the will, executor’s oath, and
acknowledgement of service and assent to probate. However, for the
estate to be opened, Singleton was required to file heir notification
5 letters for the client’s siblings. On December 14, 2020, the client
emailed Singleton asking him to mail the heir notification letters to
his siblings and asking if he needed a copy of his mother’s death
certificate. Singleton failed to respond. On January 11, 2021, the
client emailed Singleton stating that he had tried to reach him and
asking about the status of the notification letters. Singleton again
failed to respond. The client then contacted the probate court and
learned that nothing had been filed since the initial documents. The
client asked Singleton to forward the notification letters so that the
client could send them to the court himself. Singleton failed to
respond, and the client filed a grievance with the State Bar. On
August 15, 2021, Singleton emailed the client apologizing for the
delay in moving forward with the estate matter and informing the
client that Singleton was going through personal difficulties. On
August 21, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to terminate the
representation and asked Singleton to send an itemized bill for the
services rendered and to refund the unused portion of the initial fee.
Singleton did not respond to the client until March 24, 2022, when
6 he sent the client an email to ask the best way to refund the fee.
However, Singleton failed to refund the fee.
The Special Master further recounted that at the evidentiary
hearing, the client testified that during the time of Singleton’s
representation, his family was very distraught and going through
an emotional time. The client also testified that he felt Singleton
abandoned him and had “ridden off into the sunset” with the
retainer fee. Additionally, the client stated that his family had to
prepare and submit the applicable forms themselves so that the
estate could be opened.
(ii) SDB Docket No. 7665
In August 2020, the client in this matter hired Singleton to
represent her in a dispute with a bank after the bank filed a lawsuit
against her regarding an outstanding credit card balance. Singleton
failed to timely file an answer to the complaint and did not enter an
appearance in the case until October 19, 2020, which was over a
month after the deadline to file an answer had passed. On October
23, 2020, counsel for the bank filed a motion for default judgment.
7 Singleton failed to respond to the motion for default and failed to tell
the client about the motion. On November 6, 2020, the client emailed
Singleton asking if he did any work on her case. On November 9,
2020, Singleton emailed the client and informed her that he was
discussing settlement terms with the bank. The client told Singleton
that she was agreeable to paying a monthly amount around $300.
Singleton negotiated a settlement on behalf of the client with the
bank’s counsel. However, on December 1, 2020, the court entered a
default judgment against the client for $12,691.67, $800 in attorney
fees, and costs of $307.50. A paralegal for the bank informed
Singleton that the bank would still honor the settlement agreement,
and on January 7, 2021, the paralegal sent Singleton the settlement
agreement for the client to execute. Per the agreement, the client
was to start making payments on January 9, 2021. However,
Singleton did not provide the agreement to the client nor discuss its
terms with her, such that the client was unaware of the agreement
and did not make any payments in January 2021. On January 20,
2021, the bank filed a writ of fieri facias, and a lien was placed on
8 the client’s home for the principal amount owed by the client as well
as the attorney fees and court costs. On February 11, 2021, the
bank’s paralegal emailed Singleton to follow up on the settlement
agreement. Singleton did not respond.
Between November 2020 and March 2021, the client did not
hear from Singleton. In March 2021, the client learned about the
bank’s judgment and discovered that there was a lien on her home
and that the bank garnished her bank account for failure to make
payments per the agreement. On March 11, 2021, the client emailed
Singleton, but he did not respond. On March 15, 2021, the client
emailed Singleton again. Singleton responded and told the client
that he was working with opposing counsel. On this same day, the
bank’s counsel emailed Singleton to ask if he still represented the
client. Singleton responded that he was representing the client and
that she intended to move forward with the settlement. Opposing
counsel informed Singleton that he no longer had authority to enter
into the negotiated settlement, and Singleton asked opposing
counsel to obtain authority from the bank to proceed with the
9 settlement. On March 18, 2021, opposing counsel emailed Singleton
to inform him that he had approval from the bank. However, again
Singleton failed to inform the client about the agreement.
On March 24, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to ask if he
had reached an agreement with the bank’s counsel. Singleton did
not respond. On April 13, 2021, the client emailed Singleton and
terminated the representation. Again, Singleton failed to respond.
On June 1, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to inform him that she
was considering filing a malpractice claim and State Bar complaint
against him. The client proposed a settlement to Singleton of
$12,500. On June 8, 2021, Singleton replied to the client and
informed her that he would respond to her demand within 10 days.
However, Singleton failed to respond within 10 days. In July 2021,
the client filed a grievance with the State Bar, after which Singleton
and the client negotiated her demand down to $5,000. However,
Singleton never followed through on making any payments.
The Special Master also recounted that at the evidentiary
hearing, the client testified that she felt Singleton owed her
10 restitution for his failure to adequately represent her because she
was unable to refinance her home at a lower rate and her credit
suffered as a result of the judgment and lien against her.
Additionally, the client testified that she made her last payment to
the bank in December 2024 and was still waiting for the lien to be
removed. Further, the client testified that because of Singleton’s
misconduct, it cost her more to hire Singleton as her attorney than
if she had tried to negotiate with the bank herself.
(iii) SDB Docket No. 7830
Around 2021, Singleton represented a minor in a personal
injury action and received $35,388.83 in settlement funds belonging
to the minor, which Singleton deposited in his trust account. The
conservator for the minor made several requests to Singleton to
release the settlement funds in Singleton’s possession. Singleton did
not respond to the requests, nor did he release the settlement funds.
On July 18, 2022, the conservator filed a motion to compel the
release of the funds. The court granted the motion; ordered
Singleton to release the funds by September 30, 2022; and informed
11 him that failure to do so could result in a finding of contempt.
Singleton failed to release the funds by September 30, 2022, and on
October 3, 2022, Singleton filed a motion to extend time to comply
with the court’s order. On October 6, 2022, the court entered an
order granting Singleton an extension through October 17, 2022.
Again, Singleton failed to release the funds. On November 21, 2022,
the conservator filed a motion for contempt due to Singleton’s failure
to turn over the funds as ordered. Singleton filed a response to the
motion, admitting that he failed to safeguard the minor’s funds and
explaining that he was experiencing a multitude of personal
issues—including a divorce, death of loved ones, and the financial
impact of the pandemic—and that he began receiving treatment
from a therapist. On January 13, 2023, the court conducted a
hearing on the motion and found Singleton in civil contempt for
failing to pay the funds belonging to the minor. The court ordered
that Singleton be incarcerated until January 17, 2023, or until he
paid the full amount of funds. Singleton did not pay the funds by
January 17, 2023, and the court held another hearing to determine
12 whether he should be released from incarceration. The court then
entered an order that he be released and that he pay the funds by
June 15, 2023. Singleton did not pay the $35,388.83 to the
conservator by June 15, 2023. The Special Master noted that, as of
April 2025, Singleton had made only three payments to the
conservator: $8,000 in May 2023 and $4,500 and $2,000 in October
2023.
(b) Rule Violations
The Special Master determined that Singleton violated Rules
1.2(a) by being hired to probate the client’s mother’s will but failing
to communicate with the client about what needed to be submitted
to open the estate; 1.3 by failing to submit documents from the
client’s siblings to finalize the estate; 1.4(a) by failing to
communicate with the client despite the client’s multiple attempts
to contact him; and 1.16(d) by failing to refund the unearned fee to
the client after Singleton’s termination.
13 The Special Master determined that Singleton violated Rules
1.2(a) by being hired to represent the client in the dispute with the
bank but failing to communicate with the client about the settlement
agreement and her obligations under the agreement; 1.3 by failing
to answer the complaint on behalf of the client, failing to finalize the
settlement, and failing to provide the settlement documents to the
client; and 1.4(a) by failing to keep the client updated on the status
of the settlement negotiations and failing to tell the client that he
reached an agreement and that the client needed to start making
payments.
Based on Singleton’s default, the Special Master determined
that Singleton violated Rules 1.15(I)(a) by failing to safeguard and
account for the minor’s settlement funds in his possession; 3.5(d) by
disregarding the probate court’s orders to release the settlement
funds to the conservator, unnecessarily expending court resources
by requiring the court to issue multiple orders and hold multiple
14 hearings; and Rule 8.4(a)(4) by mishandling the minor’s settlement
funds and converting the funds for personal use.
(c) ABA Standards
The Special Master then applied the framework set out in the
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“ABA
Standards”), which provides that, when imposing a sanction, “a
court should consider the following factors: (a) the duty violated; (b)
the lawyer’s mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused
by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or
mitigating factors.” ABA Standard 3.0. In assessing the duty
violated, the Special Master determined that Singleton violated
several duties owed to his clients, including the duty of diligence,
the duty to consult and communicate, and the duty to perform the
work for which he was hired. In assessing Singleton’s mental state,
the Special Master determined that Singleton’s actions were
knowing rather than inadvertent or negligent, as he knew that his
clients had attempted to contact him on numerous occasions, knew
that he did not perform the work he was hired to do, and knew that
15 he converted the minor’s settlement funds for personal expenses due
to his financial difficulties. In assessing the injuries caused, the
Special Master determined that Singleton’s conduct caused harm to
his clients, as the client in SDB Docket No. 7664 testified at the
evidentiary hearing that she was unable to refinance her home at a
lower rate and her credit suffered because of the judgment against
her, his client in SDB Docket No. 7665 faced a delay in opening the
estate to resolve any outstanding debts and finalize his mother’s
affairs, and the minor in SDB Docket No. 7830 was robbed of his
settlement and still has not received the funds to which he is
entitled.
The Special Master also determined that the following
aggravating factors applied. Singelton had a prior disciplinary
offense, as he received a confidential reprimand in January 2020 for
violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a)(4). See ABA Standard 9.22(a).
Singleton had a dishonest or selfish motive, as Singleton stole his
client’s settlement. See ABA Standard 9.22(b). Singleton had a
pattern of misconduct, as he engaged in a pattern of failing to
16 perform work for his clients. See ABA Standard 9.22(c). Singleton
committed multiple offenses, as his conduct violated several
provisions of the GRPC in three separate matters. See ABA
Standard 9.22(d). Singleton’s victims were vulnerable, as his clients
were going through difficult emotional times and one of his clients
was a minor who was injured. See ABA Standard 9.22(h). Singleton
had substantial experience in the practice of law, as he was admitted
to practice in 1996. See ABA Standard 9.22(i). Finally, Singleton
showed an indifference to making restitution, as he has yet to refund
his clients for the work he did not perform and has made only a few
payments to the conservator. See ABA Standard 9.22(j). The Special
Master determined that only two mitigating factors applied.
Singleton was experiencing personal or emotional problems, as he
testified at the hearing that he was suffering from a mental health
condition that affected his ability to practice law,1 was in the midst
1 Singleton also submitted a fitness evaluation completed by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist concluded that Singleton suffered from a mental health condition from early 2019 until mid-2022 and the condition greatly affected his ability to practice law.
17 of a divorce, was grieving the loss of two family members, and was
facing financial difficulties during the pandemic. See ABA Standard
9.32(c). Additionally, Singelton showed remorse, as he appeared
remorseful for his conduct during his testimony. See ABA Standard
9.32(l).
(d) Recommended Discipline
The Special Master concluded that disbarment is the
appropriate penalty for Singleton’s Rule violations. In doing so, the
Special Master explained that such a sanction was imposed in
similar cases decided by this Court.
3. The Review Board’s Report and Recommendation
Singleton requested the Review Board review the Special
Master’s report and recommendation. The Review Board adopted
the Special Master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law as to the
Rules violated, and determinations regarding the ABA Standards.
As for the appropriate sanction, the Review Board explained that
while it was sympathetic that Singleton was suffering from mental
health issues when the violations occurred, disbarment was
18 appropriate, as his actions in SDB Docket No. 7830 were “especially
egregious.” Therefore, the Review Board recommended that
Singleton be disbarred from the practice of law.
4. Analysis
Singleton does not challenge the Review Board’s report and
recommendation of disbarment before this Court. After our review
of the record, we agree that Singleton has violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3,
1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.16(d), and 8.4(a)(4) and that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in this case, as this sanction has been imposed
in similar cases.2 See In the Matter of Raines, 322 Ga. 593 (2025)
(attorney with no prior disciplinary history disbarred for violating
Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(b), and 8.4(a)(4) in
connection with three client matters where attorney stopped
communicating with his clients, failed to perform work in their
2 Because we conclude that disbarment is warranted for Singleton’s violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(b), and 8.4(a)(4), we pretermit the question of whether Singleton violated Rule 3.5(d) by “engag[ing] in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.” See In the Matter of Morris, 302 Ga. 862, 864 n.3 (2018) (declining to reach question of whether attorney violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) because attorney clearly violated other Rules for which disbarment was appropriate).
19 cases, and dishonestly converted client funds for personal use); In
the Matter of Holliday, 308 Ga. 216 (2020) (attorney with no prior
disciplinary history disbarred for violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a),
1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a)(4) where attorney stopped communicating
with her clients, failed to perform work on their cases, and failed to
timely return unearned fees); In the Matter of McGowan, 322 Ga.
349 (2025) (attorney with no prior disciplinary history disbarred for
violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(I)(c), 1.15(I)(d),
1.15(II)(b), 8.4(a)(4), and 9.3 where attorney converted client funds
for personal use and showed an indifference in making restitution).
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Charles
Bruce Singleton, Jr. be removed from the rolls of persons authorized
to practice law in the State of Georgia. Singleton is reminded of his
duties under Bar Rule 4-219(b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.