In the Matter of Franklin David McCrea
This text of 879 S.E.2d 499 (In the Matter of Franklin David McCrea) 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
314 Ga. 810 FINAL COPY
S22Y1157, S22Y1158. IN THE MATTER OF FRANKLIN DAVID MCCREA.
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on a
consolidated report and recommendation by Special Master Jack
Jeffrey Helms, Jr., addressing two formal complaints and
recommending that the Court disbar Franklin David McCrea (State
Bar No. 486850) for his violations of multiple provisions of the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), see Bar Rule 4-102
(d), in connection with two client matters. For the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the Special Master and order McCrea’s
disbarment.
McCrea was admitted to the State Bar in 19921 and has no
prior disciplinary history. The record reflects that after the State
1 On July 29, 2022, this Court entered an order suspending McCrea for his non-compliance with the requirements for continuing legal education. Bar filed its two complaints, which were docketed as State
Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7322 and 7448, McCrea
participated in the disciplinary proceedings initially, but for the past
17 months, it appears that he has ignored the proceedings.
Specifically, in connection with SDBD No. 7322, he failed to respond
to the notice of investigation, and although he acknowledged service
of the formal complaint, he failed to file a timely answer. In
response to the State Bar’s motion for default, however, he admitted
he had no defense to the allegations. In connection with SDBD No.
7448, McCrea filed an inadequate response to the notice of
investigation2 and, after being personally served with the formal
complaint in April 2021, filed an untimely answer to the formal
complaint in August 2021, in which he admitted most of the facts
2 This Court first suspended McCrea in March 2020 after he failed to
adequately respond to the notice of investigation underlying SDBD No. 7448, but the Court reinstated McCrea at the State Bar’s request after it determined that his belated response was adequate. See Case No. S20Y0902 (Mar. 3, 2020, and Aug. 3, 2020). Around this same time, it appears, from a review of the dockets of this Court and the Court of Appeals, that McCrea was a defendant in a criminal case, see McCrea v. State, Case No. A20I0203 (Apr. 15, 2020), cert. denied, Case No. S20C1232 (Dec. 21, 2020). There is no information about any criminal proceeding in the record of these disciplinary matters.
2 and all of the rules violations alleged. In March 2022, the State Bar
moved for judgment on the pleadings, and McCrea failed to respond.
In his response to the Bar’s motion for default in SDBD No. 7322
and in his untimely answer in SDBD No. 7448, McCrea sought an
opportunity to present mitigating evidence, but he ultimately failed
to respond to the Special Master’s and the Bar’s counsel’s lengthy
efforts to set up a hearing. Ultimately, the Special Master granted
the motion for default and the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Based on McCrea’s admissions and his default, the following
facts appear. In connection with SDBD No. 7322, McCrea
represented a client in 2018 in a federal criminal matter in which
the client entered a guilty plea. The client retained appellate
counsel to pursue post-conviction remedies, and appellate counsel
contacted McCrea in late November 2018, asking that McCrea
provide him with the client’s complete file. McCrea never provided
the client’s file to appellate counsel, and the client’s appeal was
ultimately dismissed. In connection with SDBD No. 7448, McCrea
was retained to represent a client in obtaining an uncontested
3 divorce and was paid a flat fee of $950, but he failed to respond to
inquiries from his client regarding the status of the case. In late
November 2018, McCrea sent his client an e-mail, stating that he
would call later that afternoon and that the divorce would be final
by January 2019 at the latest. However, the divorce was never
finalized by McCrea, and the client retained another attorney to
finalize the divorce.
The Special Master determined, and we agree, that by this
conduct McCrea violated GRPC 1.2 (a) (lawyer shall abide by client’s
decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall
consult with client as to the means by which they are to be pursued);
1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client and shall not willfully abandon or disregard a
legal matter entrusted to him); 1.4 (a) (3) (lawyer shall keep client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter); 1.4 (a) (4)
(lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information); 1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, lawyer
shall take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, including
4 surrendering papers); and 9.3 (during investigation of a grievance
against him, lawyer shall respond to disciplinary authorities in
accordance with State Bar Rules). The maximum sanction for a
violation of GRPC 1.2 (a) and 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum
sanction for a violation of the remaining rules is a public reprimand.
In his consolidated report and recommendation, the Special
Master correctly noted that while the primary purpose of a
disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are
not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional
conduct, see In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461)
(2011), this Court is also concerned with the public’s confidence in
the profession, see id. The Special Master considered the ABA
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992), see In the Matter
of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996); determined that
the following aggravating circumstances were present: multiple
offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law, see ABA
Standard 9.22 (d), (i); and found that McCrea’s lack of prior
disciplinary record was the sole mitigating factor, see ABA Standard
5 9.32 (a). The Special Master further noted that McCrea was given
the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances at
a hearing but rightly concluded that McCrea waived that
opportunity by failing to respond to the Special Master’s and the
State Bar’s efforts to set up such a hearing. The Special Master
concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an
attorney who abandons his client and fails to respond to disciplinary
authorities. Neither McCrea nor the State Bar sought review by the
Review Panel, and McCrea failed to file exceptions to the Special
Master’s report.
Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction and that disbarment is consistent with prior
cases in which an attorney has, indisputably, violated provisions of
the GRPC that carry disbarment as a sanction and has failed to
participate fully in the disciplinary process. See In the Matter of
Bell, 313 Ga. 615 (872 SE2d 290) (2022) (disbarring attorney for
violating GRPC 1.2 (a) and 1.3, as well as other rules, where
attorney did not respond to Bar’s motion for partial summary
6 judgment and filed untimely and inadequate exceptions to Special
Master’s report and recommendation); In the Matter of Powell, 310
Ga. 859, 860 (854 SE2d 731) (2021) (disbarring attorney for
abandoning single client and failing to respond to disciplinary
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
879 S.E.2d 499, 314 Ga. 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-franklin-david-mccrea-ga-2022.