306 Ga. 622 FINAL COPY
S19Y1192. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES EDWARD TAYLOR.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report of
special master Charles D. Jones, which recommends that Charles
Edward Taylor (State Bar No. 699681) be disbarred. Taylor, who has
been a member of the Bar since 1997, was personally served with
the formal complaint underlying this matter, but he failed to
respond to the complaint or to seek an extension of the time for
responding. The Bar then moved for Taylor to be held in default, he
failed to respond to the Bar’s motion, and the special master found
him to be in default, as a result of which he is deemed to have
admitted the allegations of the complaint.
The facts, as deemed admitted by Taylor’s default, show that
Taylor associated with a non-lawyer who advertised mortgage loan
modification services to consumers. In furtherance of this
enterprise, Taylor cooperated in setting up a business entity, C. Taylor Law Firm, LLC, and cooperated in setting up an account that
would allow the LLC to accept credit card payments, which Taylor
did not accept in his regular practice. Taylor’s non-lawyer associate
created a website for the LLC; created and disseminated marketing
materials on behalf of Taylor and the LLC, some of which contained
misrepresentations to the effect that Taylor had offices in Texas and
Colorado; created e-mail addresses for the LLC, separate from
Taylor’s official e-mail address on file with the Bar; created a phone
number for the LLC, separate from Taylor’s official phone number
on file with the Bar; wrote and signed letters on behalf of the LLC;
and told customers responding to the marketing materials that they
were being represented by Taylor, for whom the associate
maintained he was an employee.
Taylor permitted funds paid to the LLC to go directly to the
non-lawyer associate, rather than to Taylor’s trust account; failed to
exercise any oversight as to the payment account for the LLC;
accepted referrals from the associate and filed cases without
personally vetting the clients or their cases, resulting in the filing of
2 “skeletal” bankruptcy petitions containing only basic information
and often only a partial filing fee; and identified himself on
bankruptcy petitions and supporting documents as representing the
clients referred by the associate, despite his failure to supervise the
associate’s conduct or communications about the clients’ mortgages.
In the absence of supervision from Taylor, the associate had clients
sign forms in which they agreed to pay money to Taylor, to allow the
LLC to withdraw funds from their accounts, and to authorize the
release of their information not only to the LLC, but also to the
associate and other individuals who were not associated with Taylor.
These clients stated that they believed that their money and
information would be safe because they were being entrusted to a
lawyer.
In one of the client matters leading to this disciplinary matter,
a client retained the LLC to avoid foreclosure, because she was
attempting to sell her home and needed additional time to do so. The
client spoke to Taylor and his non-lawyer associate, who assured her
that they would help her keep her home long enough to find a buyer.
3 Accordingly, the client made a number of payments to the LLC,
apparently totaling $2,850, but the special master noted that the
record did not make clear whether any of that money was paid
toward the client’s mortgage, as Taylor’s associate had promised the
client.
Taylor informed the client that he would file a Chapter 13
bankruptcy on her behalf and obtained from her a check for $310,
the filing fee for such a proceeding. However, Taylor used only $75
of the $310 to make a partial payment of the filing fee, keeping $200
as his fee for undertaking the filing and failing to account for the
remaining $35. Taylor filed a skeletal bankruptcy petition on the
client’s behalf, but falsely declared to the bankruptcy court that he
had to that date received no compensation and that his entire fee
remained due. Although the filing of the skeletal petition did result
in the postponement of the foreclosure sale of the client’s home, the
petition was shortly thereafter dismissed because the balance of the
filing fee had not been paid. The client contacted Taylor about the
dismissal via text message, and he responded, but he did not know
4 with whom he was communicating and did not know that the client’s
case had been dismissed. The bankruptcy court then sent the client
a notice seeking payment of the balance of the filing fee for the
dismissed case, lest additional collection proceedings ensue.
The client’s home was again scheduled for a foreclosure sale,
and Taylor filed a second skeletal petition, this one filed under the
name of his regular firm rather than the LLC. Taylor again paid
only $75 of the $310 filing fee the client provided, again keeping the
balance for himself and again declaring to the bankruptcy court that
he had not yet received any compensation. Taylor filed a motion for
the client to be allowed to pay the filing fee for the second case in
installments, but the court denied the motion because the client had
defaulted on the fees owed in the prior case. Despite the filing of the
second bankruptcy case, the client’s home was sold in foreclosure,
and she returned to her home two days later to find a dispossessory
notice posted on the door. When contacted by the client, Taylor
directed her to speak with his non-lawyer associate, who responded
to an initial text message from the client but then failed to respond
5 to additional attempts at communication. The client then contacted
Taylor again, but he attempted to avoid responsibility for the client’s
situation and told her he would look into the matter. A few days
later, the client contacted Taylor to discuss why the filing fee for the
first case had not been paid in full, but Taylor failed to respond to
that message or her subsequent attempts at communication. The
client’s second case was then dismissed, and she was again served
with a bill for the unpaid filing fee.
In the other client matter at issue here, the client had received
a mailed advertisement from the LLC and contacted Taylor’s non-
lawyer associate, who provided the client with a contract with the
LLC. The client, whose home was scheduled to be sold at a
foreclosure sale, signed the contract and made payments totaling
$2,250 to the LLC. The client then paid a further $475 to Taylor, but
Taylor again paid only $75 toward the filing fee for the client’s
bankruptcy petition, retaining the balance for himself and failing to
account for it; Taylor also again falsely declared to the bankruptcy
court that he had to that point received no compensation and that
6 his entire fee remained due. Taylor filed a skeletal bankruptcy
petition on the client’s behalf, resulting in the postponement of the
foreclosure sale, and an application seeking to pay the filing fee in
installments. The bankruptcy court entered an order directing that
the balance of the filing fee would have to be paid in installments or
else the case would be dismissed and further ordered that the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
306 Ga. 622 FINAL COPY
S19Y1192. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES EDWARD TAYLOR.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report of
special master Charles D. Jones, which recommends that Charles
Edward Taylor (State Bar No. 699681) be disbarred. Taylor, who has
been a member of the Bar since 1997, was personally served with
the formal complaint underlying this matter, but he failed to
respond to the complaint or to seek an extension of the time for
responding. The Bar then moved for Taylor to be held in default, he
failed to respond to the Bar’s motion, and the special master found
him to be in default, as a result of which he is deemed to have
admitted the allegations of the complaint.
The facts, as deemed admitted by Taylor’s default, show that
Taylor associated with a non-lawyer who advertised mortgage loan
modification services to consumers. In furtherance of this
enterprise, Taylor cooperated in setting up a business entity, C. Taylor Law Firm, LLC, and cooperated in setting up an account that
would allow the LLC to accept credit card payments, which Taylor
did not accept in his regular practice. Taylor’s non-lawyer associate
created a website for the LLC; created and disseminated marketing
materials on behalf of Taylor and the LLC, some of which contained
misrepresentations to the effect that Taylor had offices in Texas and
Colorado; created e-mail addresses for the LLC, separate from
Taylor’s official e-mail address on file with the Bar; created a phone
number for the LLC, separate from Taylor’s official phone number
on file with the Bar; wrote and signed letters on behalf of the LLC;
and told customers responding to the marketing materials that they
were being represented by Taylor, for whom the associate
maintained he was an employee.
Taylor permitted funds paid to the LLC to go directly to the
non-lawyer associate, rather than to Taylor’s trust account; failed to
exercise any oversight as to the payment account for the LLC;
accepted referrals from the associate and filed cases without
personally vetting the clients or their cases, resulting in the filing of
2 “skeletal” bankruptcy petitions containing only basic information
and often only a partial filing fee; and identified himself on
bankruptcy petitions and supporting documents as representing the
clients referred by the associate, despite his failure to supervise the
associate’s conduct or communications about the clients’ mortgages.
In the absence of supervision from Taylor, the associate had clients
sign forms in which they agreed to pay money to Taylor, to allow the
LLC to withdraw funds from their accounts, and to authorize the
release of their information not only to the LLC, but also to the
associate and other individuals who were not associated with Taylor.
These clients stated that they believed that their money and
information would be safe because they were being entrusted to a
lawyer.
In one of the client matters leading to this disciplinary matter,
a client retained the LLC to avoid foreclosure, because she was
attempting to sell her home and needed additional time to do so. The
client spoke to Taylor and his non-lawyer associate, who assured her
that they would help her keep her home long enough to find a buyer.
3 Accordingly, the client made a number of payments to the LLC,
apparently totaling $2,850, but the special master noted that the
record did not make clear whether any of that money was paid
toward the client’s mortgage, as Taylor’s associate had promised the
client.
Taylor informed the client that he would file a Chapter 13
bankruptcy on her behalf and obtained from her a check for $310,
the filing fee for such a proceeding. However, Taylor used only $75
of the $310 to make a partial payment of the filing fee, keeping $200
as his fee for undertaking the filing and failing to account for the
remaining $35. Taylor filed a skeletal bankruptcy petition on the
client’s behalf, but falsely declared to the bankruptcy court that he
had to that date received no compensation and that his entire fee
remained due. Although the filing of the skeletal petition did result
in the postponement of the foreclosure sale of the client’s home, the
petition was shortly thereafter dismissed because the balance of the
filing fee had not been paid. The client contacted Taylor about the
dismissal via text message, and he responded, but he did not know
4 with whom he was communicating and did not know that the client’s
case had been dismissed. The bankruptcy court then sent the client
a notice seeking payment of the balance of the filing fee for the
dismissed case, lest additional collection proceedings ensue.
The client’s home was again scheduled for a foreclosure sale,
and Taylor filed a second skeletal petition, this one filed under the
name of his regular firm rather than the LLC. Taylor again paid
only $75 of the $310 filing fee the client provided, again keeping the
balance for himself and again declaring to the bankruptcy court that
he had not yet received any compensation. Taylor filed a motion for
the client to be allowed to pay the filing fee for the second case in
installments, but the court denied the motion because the client had
defaulted on the fees owed in the prior case. Despite the filing of the
second bankruptcy case, the client’s home was sold in foreclosure,
and she returned to her home two days later to find a dispossessory
notice posted on the door. When contacted by the client, Taylor
directed her to speak with his non-lawyer associate, who responded
to an initial text message from the client but then failed to respond
5 to additional attempts at communication. The client then contacted
Taylor again, but he attempted to avoid responsibility for the client’s
situation and told her he would look into the matter. A few days
later, the client contacted Taylor to discuss why the filing fee for the
first case had not been paid in full, but Taylor failed to respond to
that message or her subsequent attempts at communication. The
client’s second case was then dismissed, and she was again served
with a bill for the unpaid filing fee.
In the other client matter at issue here, the client had received
a mailed advertisement from the LLC and contacted Taylor’s non-
lawyer associate, who provided the client with a contract with the
LLC. The client, whose home was scheduled to be sold at a
foreclosure sale, signed the contract and made payments totaling
$2,250 to the LLC. The client then paid a further $475 to Taylor, but
Taylor again paid only $75 toward the filing fee for the client’s
bankruptcy petition, retaining the balance for himself and failing to
account for it; Taylor also again falsely declared to the bankruptcy
court that he had to that point received no compensation and that
6 his entire fee remained due. Taylor filed a skeletal bankruptcy
petition on the client’s behalf, resulting in the postponement of the
foreclosure sale, and an application seeking to pay the filing fee in
installments. The bankruptcy court entered an order directing that
the balance of the filing fee would have to be paid in installments or
else the case would be dismissed and further ordered that the
skeletal petition be supplemented.
Taylor then failed to appear at a scheduled meeting of
creditors, without giving notice to the court or his client that he
would not appear. The court subsequently dismissed the client’s case
for non-payment of the full balance of the filing fee and sent the
client a bill for the remaining fee. The client retained new counsel,
who filed a new, complete bankruptcy plan. The client’s matter was
brought before the fee arbitration panel, which concluded that the
client paid Taylor $2,725 for services that were not provided, that
payments were made through the LLC’s account, that Taylor failed
to appear at a scheduled hearing or to provide notice that he would
not appear, and that Taylor’s non-lawyer associate acted illegally in
7 ways known to Taylor. The special master concluded that the fee
award granted to the client was supported by clear and convincing
evidence and that Taylor had failed to pay the amount awarded to
the client.
Based on this conduct, the special master concluded that
Taylor had committed violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.1, 3.3, 5.3,
8.4 (a) (1), and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.3,
5.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment; the maximum sanction for a
violation of Rules 1.4 and 3.1 is a public reprimand; and the
maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (1) is the maximum
penalty for the specific Rule violated.1 In aggravation of discipline,
1 Rule 8.4 (a) (1) makes it a violation for a lawyer to “violate or knowingly
attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another[.]” The special master concluded that Taylor violated this rule by assisting his non-lawyer associate in setting up the LLC and its account, which gave the associate “the capacity to defraud clients in [Taylor’s] name.” However, neither the formal complaint initiating this matter nor the special master’s report identified the specific rule or rules that this conduct violated. Although that omission does not affect our conclusion in this matter, given the clear evidence of other rule violations supporting the recommended sanction of disbarment, we remind the Bar and special masters that it is necessary to specify the predicate rule
8 the special master found that Taylor displayed a dishonest or selfish
motive, that the facts demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and
multiple violations of the Rules, that he failed to comply with the
Bar’s rules and directions, that he refused to acknowledge his
misconduct, that he has substantial experience in the practice of
law, and that he has shown indifference to making restitution; the
sole factor found in mitigation was Taylor’s lack of a prior
disciplinary history. Accordingly, the special master concluded that
disbarment was the appropriate sanction and was consonant with
the sanction imposed by this Court in prior disciplinary matters
involving serious misconduct and the failure to participate in the
disciplinary process. See, e.g., In the Matter of Barton, 303 Ga. 818,
819 (813 SE2d 590) (2018) (noting that, under Standard 4.41 (b) and
(c) of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
“disbarment is generally appropriate where serious or potentially
serious injury is caused to a client by, respectively, the lawyer’s
violations on which a Rule 8.4 (a) (1) violation is based, particularly because the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (1) is “the maximum penalty for the specific Rule violated.”
9 knowing failure to perform services for the client and the lawyer’s
having engaged in a pattern of neglect of client matters”).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is
the appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby
ordered that the name of Charles Edward Taylor be removed from
the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of
Georgia. Taylor is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-
219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED AUGUST 19, 2019. Disbarment.
10 Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, James S. Lewis, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.