In the Matter of Charles Lanford, Jr.

396 S.E.2d 228, 260 Ga. 408, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 311
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 27, 1990
DocketSupreme Court Disciplinary 799
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 396 S.E.2d 228 (In the Matter of Charles Lanford, Jr.) 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 the Matter of Charles Lanford, Jr., 396 S.E.2d 228, 260 Ga. 408, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 311 (Ga. 1990).

Opinion

*408 Per curiam.

Charles A. Lanford, Jr. was indicted in the Superior Court of Bibb County for five counts of the felony of obtaining drugs by fraudulent means. He pleaded guilty to the indictment, was sentenced, and filed a petition for voluntary discipline in the form of suspension from the practice of law for 12 months, admitting that his conviction constituted a violation of Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

The State Bar of Georgia has stated that because of the unusual mitigating circumstances in this matter, it has no objection to the discipline requested. Those circumstances, as found by the Special Master, are that Lanford became addicted to a prescription drug while using it pursuant to medical direction after an injury; that he has admitted his addiction and sought treatment; that he voluntarily withdrew from the practice of law when he was initially charged with the drug offenses; that he obtained prescriptions under the name of his father, a physician, without his father’s knowledge; that no client or third party suffered any harm or injury as a result of his addiction; and that there is no record of any previous disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against Lanford.

The Special Master found those circumstances sufficient to mitigate the imposition of disbarment, the usual sanction for a violation of Standard 66, and found, accordingly, that suspension for 12 months from the practice of law would be an appropriate discipline in this case. We agree and, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (e), order that Lanford be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 12 months.

All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.

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

Related

In the Matter of Swindall
468 S.E.2d 372 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
In re Scott
455 S.E.2d 828 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)
In re Kitchings
444 S.E.2d 312 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
In re Collins
429 S.E.2d 908 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1993)
People v. Moore
849 P.2d 40 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 S.E.2d 228, 260 Ga. 408, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-charles-lanford-jr-ga-1990.