310 Ga. 855 FINAL COPY
S21Y0158. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID R. SICAY-PERROW.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the State Bar’s
Notice of Discipline, filed at the direction of the State Disciplinary
Board (the “Board”), seeking the disbarment of David R. Sicay-
Perrow (State Bar No. 645285), who has been a member of the State
Bar since 1990, for violating Rules 1.15 (I) (a), (c), 1.15 (II) (a), (b),
and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in
Bar Rule 4-201 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of
Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (a), (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. Sicay-
Perrow is currently suspended from the practice of law in this State,
as reciprocal discipline for disciplinary action taken against him in
Tennessee. See In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, 301 Ga. 666 (802
SE2d 252) (2017). In July 2018, the Membership Department of the
State Bar also administratively suspended his law license as a result
of his failure to pay dues. The State Bar attempted to serve Sicay-Perrow at his official
address in the State Bar’s membership records, but he failed to
acknowledge service of the Notice of Discipline within 20 days of its
mailing. Since personal service could not be perfected, Sicay-Perrow
also was served by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3)
(ii). Sicay-Perrow failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, he
is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is
subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be
determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
According to the State Bar, the Board conducted an
investigation into this matter, which revealed the following facts. In
January 2013, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, a husband
and wife (the “clients”) retained Sicay-Perrow’s law firm, Sicay-
Perrow & Knighten, P.C. (the “firm”), to represent their interests in
a civil collections case. Sicay-Perrow received $805 at the time he
was retained. In April 2013, the clients were notified that a
settlement agreement had been negotiated on the couple’s behalf; in
May 2013, a consent judgment was signed awarding $100,000 to the
2 clients in Hall County superior court; and the judgment was then
filed with the clerk of court in August 2013. The judgment ordered
the defendant to pay an initial lump sum of $30,000 to the firm on
behalf of the clients — to be deposited in and administered from
Sicay-Perrow’s IOLTA account — and the remaining $70,000 was to
be remitted by the defendant to the firm in monthly payments of
$600, which were to be deposited and administered from the IOLTA
account to the clients in monthly payments of $600. Sicay-Perrow
received the initial lump sum of $30,000 in May 2013, but he failed
to deposit it into his IOLTA account; instead, he deposited it into his
business checking account. Similarly, money orders representing
the defendant’s June and July payments of $600 were both deposited
in August 2013 in the firm’s business checking account.
The clients expected to receive $23,850 from the initial lump
sum (as Sicay-Perrow was entitled to $7,950 based on a contingency
fee agreement). However, in September 2013, Sicay-Perrow sent the
clients an e-mail stating that, “an exceptionally large amount of
money was stolen by a former office manager” and “I expect that we
3 will be able to remit the lump sum amount to you within 30 days.”
Sicay-Perrow did not communicate with the clients within the
promised 30 days; instead, he sent an e-mail to the clients in
January 2014, confirming that he collected a total of $31,800 (the
initial $30,000 and three payments of $600) of which he still owed
the clients $23,850. The clients then sent Sicay-Perrow a demand
letter in March 2014, and he responded that he needed a little more
time or he would need to file for bankruptcy. Unbeknownst to the
clients, Sicay-Perrow’s law firm had been placed into receivership in
March 2014. He then told the clients he would be unable to repay
them until the receivership ended in March 2017. In February 2017,
the clients e-mailed Sicay-Perrow to confirm that the payments
would resume in March 2017, and he responded by e-mail,
confirming that the monthly payments of $1,200 would resume. The
clients received a check for $1,200 in March, but did not receive a
check in April 2017 as promised. After several unsuccessful
attempts to contact Sicay-Perrow, the clients learned that he was no
longer practicing law and that his whereabouts were unknown. As
4 of September 8, 2020 (the date of the Notice of Discipline), the clients
had received seven checks from Sicay-Perrow totaling $6,400, with
the last disbursement remitted from the firm’s business checking
account and received in March 2017.
Although Sicay-Perrow provided the State Bar with three
checks remitted to the clients from his IOLTA account, an
investigation revealed that the funds disbursed to the clients from
his IOLTA account belonged to different clients represented by his
firm, such that he had also misappropriated those client funds when
he made disbursements from his IOLTA account to the clients. An
investigation of Sicay-Perrow’s bank records also revealed that his
IOLTA account did not have sufficient funds to repay the balance
owed to the clients.
The State Bar found that the facts revealed by the Board’s
investigation demonstrated that Sicay-Perrow violated Rule 1.15 (I)
(a) and (c)1 when he made disbursements to the clients from his
1 Rule 1.15 (I) (a)says in pertinent part that “[a] lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s possession
5 business checking account rather than his IOLTA account, when he
began to delay monthly disbursements to the clients, and when the
clients had to e-mail reminders to him in order to receive the
monthly disbursements that they did receive. The State Bar further
found that he violated Rule 1.15 (II) (a), (b)2 when he remitted $1,200
in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other property. Funds shall be kept in one or more separate accounts maintained in an approved institution as defined by Rule 1.15 (III) (c) (1).” Rule 1.15 (I) (c) says: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.
2 Rule 1.15 (II) (a) says:
Every lawyer who practices law in Georgia, whether said lawyer practices as a sole practitioner, or as a member of a firm, association, or professional corporation, and who receives money or property on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity, shall maintain or have available one or more trust accounts as required by these Rules. All funds held by a lawyer for a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity shall be deposited in and administered from a trust account.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
310 Ga. 855 FINAL COPY
S21Y0158. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID R. SICAY-PERROW.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the State Bar’s
Notice of Discipline, filed at the direction of the State Disciplinary
Board (the “Board”), seeking the disbarment of David R. Sicay-
Perrow (State Bar No. 645285), who has been a member of the State
Bar since 1990, for violating Rules 1.15 (I) (a), (c), 1.15 (II) (a), (b),
and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in
Bar Rule 4-201 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of
Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (a), (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. Sicay-
Perrow is currently suspended from the practice of law in this State,
as reciprocal discipline for disciplinary action taken against him in
Tennessee. See In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, 301 Ga. 666 (802
SE2d 252) (2017). In July 2018, the Membership Department of the
State Bar also administratively suspended his law license as a result
of his failure to pay dues. The State Bar attempted to serve Sicay-Perrow at his official
address in the State Bar’s membership records, but he failed to
acknowledge service of the Notice of Discipline within 20 days of its
mailing. Since personal service could not be perfected, Sicay-Perrow
also was served by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3)
(ii). Sicay-Perrow failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, he
is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is
subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be
determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
According to the State Bar, the Board conducted an
investigation into this matter, which revealed the following facts. In
January 2013, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, a husband
and wife (the “clients”) retained Sicay-Perrow’s law firm, Sicay-
Perrow & Knighten, P.C. (the “firm”), to represent their interests in
a civil collections case. Sicay-Perrow received $805 at the time he
was retained. In April 2013, the clients were notified that a
settlement agreement had been negotiated on the couple’s behalf; in
May 2013, a consent judgment was signed awarding $100,000 to the
2 clients in Hall County superior court; and the judgment was then
filed with the clerk of court in August 2013. The judgment ordered
the defendant to pay an initial lump sum of $30,000 to the firm on
behalf of the clients — to be deposited in and administered from
Sicay-Perrow’s IOLTA account — and the remaining $70,000 was to
be remitted by the defendant to the firm in monthly payments of
$600, which were to be deposited and administered from the IOLTA
account to the clients in monthly payments of $600. Sicay-Perrow
received the initial lump sum of $30,000 in May 2013, but he failed
to deposit it into his IOLTA account; instead, he deposited it into his
business checking account. Similarly, money orders representing
the defendant’s June and July payments of $600 were both deposited
in August 2013 in the firm’s business checking account.
The clients expected to receive $23,850 from the initial lump
sum (as Sicay-Perrow was entitled to $7,950 based on a contingency
fee agreement). However, in September 2013, Sicay-Perrow sent the
clients an e-mail stating that, “an exceptionally large amount of
money was stolen by a former office manager” and “I expect that we
3 will be able to remit the lump sum amount to you within 30 days.”
Sicay-Perrow did not communicate with the clients within the
promised 30 days; instead, he sent an e-mail to the clients in
January 2014, confirming that he collected a total of $31,800 (the
initial $30,000 and three payments of $600) of which he still owed
the clients $23,850. The clients then sent Sicay-Perrow a demand
letter in March 2014, and he responded that he needed a little more
time or he would need to file for bankruptcy. Unbeknownst to the
clients, Sicay-Perrow’s law firm had been placed into receivership in
March 2014. He then told the clients he would be unable to repay
them until the receivership ended in March 2017. In February 2017,
the clients e-mailed Sicay-Perrow to confirm that the payments
would resume in March 2017, and he responded by e-mail,
confirming that the monthly payments of $1,200 would resume. The
clients received a check for $1,200 in March, but did not receive a
check in April 2017 as promised. After several unsuccessful
attempts to contact Sicay-Perrow, the clients learned that he was no
longer practicing law and that his whereabouts were unknown. As
4 of September 8, 2020 (the date of the Notice of Discipline), the clients
had received seven checks from Sicay-Perrow totaling $6,400, with
the last disbursement remitted from the firm’s business checking
account and received in March 2017.
Although Sicay-Perrow provided the State Bar with three
checks remitted to the clients from his IOLTA account, an
investigation revealed that the funds disbursed to the clients from
his IOLTA account belonged to different clients represented by his
firm, such that he had also misappropriated those client funds when
he made disbursements from his IOLTA account to the clients. An
investigation of Sicay-Perrow’s bank records also revealed that his
IOLTA account did not have sufficient funds to repay the balance
owed to the clients.
The State Bar found that the facts revealed by the Board’s
investigation demonstrated that Sicay-Perrow violated Rule 1.15 (I)
(a) and (c)1 when he made disbursements to the clients from his
1 Rule 1.15 (I) (a)says in pertinent part that “[a] lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s possession
5 business checking account rather than his IOLTA account, when he
began to delay monthly disbursements to the clients, and when the
clients had to e-mail reminders to him in order to receive the
monthly disbursements that they did receive. The State Bar further
found that he violated Rule 1.15 (II) (a), (b)2 when he remitted $1,200
in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other property. Funds shall be kept in one or more separate accounts maintained in an approved institution as defined by Rule 1.15 (III) (c) (1).” Rule 1.15 (I) (c) says: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.
2 Rule 1.15 (II) (a) says:
Every lawyer who practices law in Georgia, whether said lawyer practices as a sole practitioner, or as a member of a firm, association, or professional corporation, and who receives money or property on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity, shall maintain or have available one or more trust accounts as required by these Rules. All funds held by a lawyer for a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity shall be deposited in and administered from a trust account. Rule 1.15 (II) (b) says, in pertinent part: Records on such trust accounts shall be so kept and maintained as to reflect at all times the exact balance held for each client or third person. No funds shall be withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer maintaining the account except
6 disbursements to the clients from his business checking account
rather than the IOLTA account, deposited the settlement funds into
and disbursed them from his business checking account, kept more
than his earned fee from the initial lump sum paid by the defendant,
and failed to keep a sufficient balance in his IOLTA account in order
to repay his clients the full amount owed. Finally, the State Bar
found that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4)3 when he (1) deposited the
clients’ settlement funds into his business checking account instead
of his IOLTA account, (2) remitted payments to the clients from his
IOLTA account knowing their funds had been deposited in his
business checking account, (3) notified the clients that he would go
into bankruptcy if their monthly disbursements were not delayed,
despite knowing that his law firm was placed in receivership, and
(4) notified the clients that they would receive monthly
earned lawyer’s fees debited against the account of a specific client and recorded as such.
3 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) says that “[i]t shall be a violation of the Georgia Rules
of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]” 7 disbursements of $1,200 after March 15, 2017, but not following
through on that promise.
The State Bar states that the Board determined that the
appropriate sanction to be imposed was disbarment and in
aggravation the Board had considered that (1) Sicay-Perrow had a
prior disciplinary history that included the suspension of his law
license in 2017; (2) his dishonest conduct, which not only
demonstrated his dishonesty toward these clients, but also toward
other clients who had their funds misappropriated from his IOLTA
account; and (3) his 30 years of experience in practicing law. The
Board found no mitigating factors to be present. Accordingly, the
State Bar requests that this Court enter an order disbarring Sicay-
Perrow from the practice of law in this State.
Having considered the record, we agree that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in this matter. See In the Matter of Hunt, 304
Ga. 635, 635-638, 644 (820 SE2d 716) (2018) (disbarring attorney
with prior disciplinary history for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II),
and 8.4 (a) (4), related to attorney’s misuse of funds he was entrusted
8 with as part of his representation of a client and her two sons); In
the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378, 379-380 (801 SE2d 39) (2017)
(disbarring attorney for violating Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II), where
attorney misappropriated trust funds and commingled those funds
with his own and offered no explanation for his conduct); In the
Matter of Rose, 299 Ga. 665, 666 (791 SE2d 1) (2016) (disbarring
attorney for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 8.4 (a) (4), where
attorney misused funds he was entrusted with as part of a real
estate closing). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of
David R. Sicay-Perrow be removed from the rolls of persons
authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Sicay-Perrow is
reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 2021. Disbarment. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.