In the Matter of Evelyn Proctor
This text of 872 S.E.2d 691 (In the Matter of Evelyn Proctor) 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.
Opinion
313 Ga. 637 FINAL COPY
S21Y1141. IN THE MATTER OF EVELYN PROCTOR.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of
Discipline recommending the disbarment of Evelyn Proctor (State
Bar No. 588425) for misconduct related to her abandonment of three
clients. The State Bar attempted to serve Proctor personally at the
address listed with the State Bar, but the sheriff filed a return of
service non est inventus. The State Bar then properly served
Proctor by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii).
Proctor failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, she is in
default, has waived her 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).
Proctor, who was admitted to the State Bar in 1992, is
currently ineligible to practice law because she has not satisfied the
requirements for active membership, including payment of fees and completion of continuing legal education requirements. See In the
Matter of Proctor, Case Nos. S20Y1356, S20Y1559 (Apr. 27, 2021)
(lifting interim suspension imposed following failure to respond to
Notices of Investigation but noting that Proctor “remain[ed]
ineligible to practice law because she ha[d] not satisfied the
requirements for active membership, including payment of license
fees and completion of continuing legal education requirements”).
The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Proctor’s default,
show the following. In connection with State Disciplinary Board
(“SDB”) Docket No. 7458, in September 2018, Proctor was retained
to represent a client in an uncontested divorce for a flat fee of $2,500
plus $300 for the filing fee, and she agreed to file the action in
January 2019. After making partial payments through January
2019, the client contacted Proctor to confirm when the action would
be filed, and Proctor responded that she was taking an extended
vacation and that upon her return, she would review the documents
the client had provided. After several weeks passed without
receiving any response to her messages, the client contacted Proctor,
2 who told her that her mother had passed away and that she would
make contact upon her return to work. On February 10, 2019, the
client contacted Proctor for a case update and was told that the
action would be filed once the final payment of $500 was paid; the
client agreed and said she would send $250 by priority mail and
would make arrangements to pay the remainder. The client sent
Proctor text messages on February 18, 25, and 26, 2019, but Proctor
failed to respond. On March 10, 2019, Proctor contacted the client
to inform her that she was having a difficult time with the death of
her mother, offered to contact another attorney who could handle
the divorce, and agreed to be responsible for the fees for the new
attorney. However, Proctor failed to contact a new attorney, failed
to file the action, failed to respond to the client’s letter terminating
her and demanding a full refund, and failed to refund the fee.
In connection with SDB Docket No. 7459, on January 23, 2018,
Proctor was retained by a client to file a child support modification
action and was paid a flat fee of $2,500. Proctor, however, failed to
file the modification action; failed to timely and meaningfully
3 respond to the client’s three requests for information about the
status of the matter; and after being terminated by the client, failed
to return the fee or the client’s file.
In connection with SDB Docket No. 7460, Proctor was
appointed to represent a client in a misdemeanor criminal matter in
April 2018. She did not meet with her client until four months after
her appointment, moments before a scheduled hearing, and after the
hearing, she failed to respond to her client’s letters and failed to file
certain motions as he requested. The trial court ultimately removed
Proctor as appointed counsel. In connection with all three matters,
Proctor failed to respond to the State Bar until she provided late
responses to the Notices of Investigation.
Based on these facts, we agree with the State Disciplinary
Board that, by this conduct, Proctor violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a),
1.15 (I) (d), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a
violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.15 (I) (d) is disbarment, and the
maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.16 (d), and
4 9.3 is a public reprimand.
We also agree that aggravating circumstances are present in
light of Proctor’s pattern of misconduct, commission of multiple
offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law, and that
only one mitigating factor is present — Proctor’s lack of a prior
disciplinary record. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions, Standards 9.22 (c), (d), and (i) and 9.32 (a). See also In
the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353, 354 (456 SE2d 52) (1995) (this
Court looks to ABA Standards for guidance in determining
appropriate sanction to impose).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is
the appropriate sanction in this matter and is consistent with prior
cases in which an attorney abandoned clients and defaulted under a
Notice of Discipline. See, e.g., In the Matter of Annis, 306 Ga. 187
(829 SE2d 346) (2019); In the Matter of Larson, 305 Ga. 522 (826
SE2d 99) (2019); In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (806 SE2d 596)
(2017). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Evelyn
Proctor be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice
5 law in the State of Georgia. Proctor is reminded of her duties
pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
Decided May 3, 2022.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
872 S.E.2d 691, 313 Ga. 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-evelyn-proctor-ga-2022.