In the Matter of David J. Farnham

873 S.E.2d 164, 313 Ga. 801

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: May 17, 2022
• Docket: S22Y0880
• Status: Published

Opinion

313 Ga. 801 FINAL COPY

S22Y0880. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of Special Master LaVonda Rochelle DeWitt

recommending that the Court accept the petition for voluntary

surrender of license filed by respondent David J. Farnham (State

Bar No. 255410), which he filed in lieu of an answer to a formal

complaint filed in February 2022.1 Farnham was admitted to the

Bar in 1986 and has a substantial disciplinary history. See In the

Matter of Farnham, 300 Ga. 645, 647 (797 SE2d 84) (2017)

(accepting voluntary petition, imposing public reprimand, and

noting prior disciplinary history) (“Farnham I”). He also has a

disciplinary matter pending. See In the Matter of Farnham, 312 Ga.

1 Also before the Court is Farnham’s motion to stay the Court’s issuance

of this opinion until a criminal jury trial scheduled for later this month for one of Farnham’s clients is completed. Having reviewed Farnham’s motion, the State Bar’s response, and Farnham’s reply brief, the Court denies the motion. 65 (860 SE2d 547) (2021) (in disciplinary matter involving formal

complaint filed in 2019, vacating special master’s report and

recommendation, vacating Review Board’s report and

recommendation, and remanding to special master for further

proceedings) (“Farnham II”). Following this Court’s issuance of

Farnham II, the State Bar filed the formal complaint at issue here,

alleging numerous violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), in connection with Farnham’s

representation of a different client, whose grievance was not at issue

in Farnham II.

The facts, as admitted in Farnham’s petition for voluntary

surrender, are as follows. Farnham was retained by a client to

pursue a personal injury claim for injuries suffered by her minor

daughter in an automobile accident. The insurance carrier for the

at-fault driver agreed to pay the policy limits of $250,000, and

Farnham received those proceeds in June 2019 and deposited them

into his trust account. Farnham explained to his client that because

her daughter was a minor, he would need to file a petition to

2 compromise the claim of a minor in the probate court. Thereafter,

Farnham failed to promptly file a petition in the probate court and

failed to respond to many of his client’s messages seeking

information about the settlement proceeds. Farnham was briefly

suspended from the practice of law by this Court for failing to

adequately respond to a notice of investigation in an unrelated

matter. See Case No. S20Y0901 (imposing suspension on March 3,

2020, and lifting suspension on June 19, 2020). During this time,

Farnham explained to his client that he could not do anything while

he was suspended. However, even after the suspension was lifted,

Farnham failed to file a petition with the probate court. Farnham

represented in his petition for voluntary surrender that the money

remains in his trust account,2 and he admitted that by this conduct

he violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2. The maximum sanction for a

violation of Rules 1.2 and 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum

sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4 and 3.2 is a public reprimand.

2 In his reply brief in support of his motion to stay, Farnham represents

that he has sent a check for $250,000 from his trust account to his client’s new counsel.

3 The State Bar filed a response, recommending that the petition

for voluntary surrender be accepted, and in a thorough report and

recommendation, the Special Master recommended that the Court

accept the petition for voluntary surrender, which is tantamount to

disbarment.3 See Rule 1.0 (r).

Having reviewed the record, we agree with the Special

Master’s recommendation and hereby accept Farnham’s petition for

voluntary surrender of his license, which is consistent with prior

cases. See, e.g., In the Matter of Redwine, 311 Ga. 287 (857 SE2d

193) (2021) (accepting, upon recommendation of special master,

petition for voluntary surrender of license following filing of formal

complaint alleging misconduct in representation of client in

personal injury matter); In the Matter of Morrey, 298 Ga. 435 (782

SE2d 444) (2016) (accepting, upon recommendation of special

master, petition for voluntary surrender of license following filing of

3 The Bar, which did not charge Farnham with a violation of Rule 3.2,

disputed that it applies to the conduct at issue, and the Special Master concluded that the rule was inapplicable. However, as the facts and violations admitted are more than adequate to support the petition for voluntary surrender, we need not determine the applicability of Rule 3.2 in this matter.

4 formal complaint and following filing of separate grievance).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of David J. Farnham

be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in

the State of Georgia. Farnham is reminded of his duties pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices concur.

Decided May 17, 2022.

Voluntary surrender of license.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D.

NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K.

Mittelman, James S. Lewis, General Counsel State Bar, for State

Bar of Georgia.

Gene Chapman, for Farnham.