In the Matter of Emmanuel Lucas West

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: March 20, 2017
• Docket: S17Y0657
• Status: 200

Opinion

300 Ga. 777 FINAL COPY

S17Y0657. IN THE MATTER OF EMMANUEL LUCAS WEST.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the supplemental petition for voluntary

discipline filed by Emmanuel Lucas West (State Bar No. 748658) prior to the

issuance of a formal complaint, see Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2), after we rejected his

initial petition, see In the Matter of West, 299 Ga. 731 (791 SE2d 781) (2016).

We reject this petition as well.

We rejected West’s initial petition, in which he sought a Review Panel

reprimand for violating Rule 1.2 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct, because the facts admitted by West did not show that he violated this

rule. We stated that the facts suggested that West violated other Rules, such as

1.2 (a) and 8.4 (a), and declined to express an opinion on the appropriateness of

a Review Panel reprimand for the conduct admitted by West.

In his supplemental petition, West, who became a member of the Bar in

2002, admits the same underlying facts as in his first petition: In the summer of 2014, an individual paid him $3,500 to represent her minor son in an

immigration matter. The son, who was a citizen of Guatemala, had been

detained in Texas and was facing removal proceedings. After discussing the

matter through an interpreter, West agreed to represent the son in seeking

asylum in the United States and timely completed the application for asylum.

West did not read the application to the client in the client’s native language,

however, and he signed the client’s name where required in the application and

supporting documents, despite the fact that one of those signatures was under

penalty of perjury and required an attestation that the client had signed the

document in West’s presence. West claims that he signed the client’s name

knowing that an applicant generally is allowed to amend or supplement his or

her application freely up until the time of the hearing, and maintains that he fully

intended to supplement with the client’s real signature at a later date.

West acknowledges that the Investigative Panel found possible violations

of Rules 1.2, 1.4, and 8.4 (a) (4). West, however, admits only to having violated

Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.4 by failing to communicate properly and consult with his

client as to the means by which the client’s objectives were being pursued. The

maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 1.2 is disbarment. The maximum

2 sanction for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand. West seeks the

imposition of a Review Panel reprimand for his admitted violations, citing the

same mitigating circumstances listed in his first petition and noting that he

agreed to accept a Review Panel reprimand as a result of negotiations with the

Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar following its investigation of this

matter. West denies violating Rule 8.4 (a) (4), which prohibits “professional

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” arguing that

he did not have the requisite mental culpability. West argues that a contrary

finding should not alter the level of discipline under the circumstances,

particularly in the light of the mitigating factors.

The State Bar has responded and accepts West’s statement of facts and

mitigating circumstances. As to Rule 8.4 (a) (4), the State Bar does not contest

West’s arguments on the issue. The State Bar asserts summarily that West’s

admissions do not provide a compelling reason to believe his misconduct rose

to the level of violation of that rule, but does not explain why. The State Bar

also asserts that whether he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is immaterial to the

recommended sanction. We cannot agree.

We have stated that a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is “among the most

3 serious violations with which a lawyer can be charged.” In the Matter of

Woodham, 296 Ga. 618, 618 (769 SE2d 353) (2015). On at least one occasion,

we have rejected a petition for voluntary discipline that has failed to address

adequately alleged violations of Rule 8.4 (a) (4). See In the Matter of

Woodham, 291 Ga. 255, 256-257 (728 SE2d 659) (2012) (rejecting petition for

voluntary discipline for failing to address the alleged violations of Rules 3.1 and

8.4 (a) (4)). The State Bar did not adequately address the issue and so we cannot

accept West’s supplemental petition.

West cites several cases in support of his argument that a Review Panel

reprimand is appropriate even if he was found to have violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4),

but in many of the cases cited, the attorney in question readily admitted violating

the rule — a factor that may have been a mitigating circumstance — whereas

West maintains he has not violated the rule. See, e.g., In the Matter of Bell, 299

Ga. 143 (787 SE2d 166) (2016) (attorney admitted to violating Rules 1.3, 1.4,

and 8.4 (a) (4) by failing to communicate truthfully with her client regarding

discovery and appointment of a guardian ad litem, failing to respond timely to

discovery, failing to seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and failing to

prepare thoroughly for certain hearings); In the Matter of Swain, 290 Ga. 678,

4 679 (725 SE2d 244) (2012) (attorney admitted that he violated Rules 1.2 (d) and

8.4 (a) (4) by notarizing signature on documents executed outside his presence);

In the Matter of Mathis, 286 Ga. 728, 729 (691 SE2d 202) (2010) (attorney

admitted he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) by filing client’s verification on petition

even though petition had not been presented to client). In another case cited by

West, the State Bar adequately addressed the allegations surrounding Rule 8.4

(a) violations. See In the Matter of Davis, 291 Ga. 169, 170 (728 SE2d 548)

(2012) (special master agreed with State Bar that attorney violated Rule 8.4 (a)

(4) by falsifying and notarizing signatures of his clients). The allegation that

West possibly violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4), however, has not been addressed by the

Bar. Therefore, we must reject West’s petition.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected. All the Justices concur.

Decided March 20, 2017.

Petition for voluntary discipline.

Warren R. Hinds, for West.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William J. Cobb, Assistant

General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.