In the Matter of Hakeem Bertrand Brock

306 Ga. 388

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: July 1, 2019
• Docket: S19Y1168
• Status: Published

Opinion

306 Ga. 388 FINAL COPY

S19Y1168. IN THE MATTER OF HAKEEM BERTRAND BROCK.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a petition for

voluntary discipline filed in May 2019 by Hakeem Bertrand Brock

(State Bar No. 705137) before the issuance of a formal complaint.

See Bar Rule 4-227 (b).1 He seeks a Review Board reprimand for his

misconduct related to the handling of his trust account and the

failure to properly supervise a nonlawyer employee. The State Bar,

after an investigation of the underlying facts and following

negotiation with Brock, supports the petition.

In his petition, Brock, who was admitted to the Bar in 2007,

makes the following admissions unconditionally. He employed a

paralegal to assist him with his personal injury cases. In May 2017,

he discovered that the paralegal had written checks on his trust

1 This Court issued an order on January 12, 2018, comprehensively amending Part IV of the Rules and Regulations for the Organization and Government of the State Bar of Georgia (“Bar Rules”). The new rules govern this matter because it was commenced after July 1, 2018. account and forged his signature, improperly withdrawing

approximately $21,000 in trust account funds, and also discovered

that she was purporting to handle legal matters on her own, without

his knowledge or participation. Some of the checks were payable to

the paralegal’s family and friends, but some checks were payable to

individuals who were her purported clients. This scheme came to

light when she wrote four checks that bounced, and Brock was

notified by his bank about the insufficient funds in his trust account.

The reason he was unaware of his paralegal’s activities was that he

did not keep a ledger or other records showing the balance in his

trust account belonging to each client or the lawyer’s fees debited

against the account of a specific client. As a result of learning of the

paralegal’s actions, he fired her, implemented new oversight

policies, and reinstated all missing client and third-party funds

using personal funds; he also notified the Rockdale County sheriff’s

office about the thefts.

Three instances of Brock’s own misuse of the trust account

came to light during the State Disciplinary Board’s investigation

2 into this matter. Specifically, in March 2017, Brock made one

personal student loan payment from his trust account, and in March

and April 2017, he made two mortgage payments from this trust

account on behalf of a former client. During its investigation, the

State Bar confirmed Brock’s assertions that the student loan

payment was made from earned attorney fees that he had

improperly retained in his trust account and that the mortgage

payments were made from the client’s funds that Brock had failed

to promptly deliver to the client.

Brock admits that by this conduct he violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a)

and (c), 1.15 (II) (a) and (b), and 5.3 (a) and (b) of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). And while he

did not know of or approve or ratify the paralegal’s actions, he

admits that because of his failure to supervise her use of the trust

account, he remains responsible for conduct that would constitute a

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if a lawyer had

engaged in such actions. See Bar Rule 5.3 (c) (2).

3 Although the maximum sanction for a violation of each of these

rules is disbarment, under the American Bar Association Standards

for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992),2 a reprimand may be

appropriate in some circumstances where a lawyer is merely

negligent in the handling of client property and in the exercise of his

professional duties. See ABA Standards 4.13, 7.3. This is such a

circumstance as the record reflects that there are several mitigating

factors in this matter, specifically, the lack of a prior disciplinary

record; the lack of a dishonest or selfish motive; a timely, good-faith

effort to make restitution and to rectify the consequences of the

misconduct; a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary

proceedings; and remorse for his misconduct. See ABA Standards

9.32 (a), (b), (d), (e), and (l). Further, these mitigating factors

outweigh the aggravating factors of Brock’s substantial experience

in the practice of law and the presence of multiple offenses. See ABA

Standards 9.22 (d) and (i). Additionally, the requested discipline is

2 This Court looks to the ABA Standards for guidance in determining the

appropriate sanction to impose. See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996).

4 supported by our prior disciplinary cases. See In the Matter of

Farnham, 300 Ga. 645 (797 SE2d 84) (2017) (public reprimand for

failure to maintain adequate direction and control over activities of

nonlawyer staff); In the Matter of Eddings, 300 Ga. 419, 421 (795

SE2d 183) (2016) (public reprimand where attorney was victim of

elaborate con perpetuated by his wife, who acted as his firm’s

financial manager); In the Matter of Ralston, 300 Ga. 416 (794 SE2d

646) (2016) (Review Panel reprimand for using earned but

undisbursed fees from trust account to provide no-interest loan to

client); In the Matter of Francis, 297 Ga. 282 (773 SE2d 280) (2015)

(Review Panel reprimand for misuse of trust account where no

clients were harmed); In the Matter of Eddleman, 298 Ga. 469 (782

SE2d 668) (2016) (public reprimand for failure to adequately train

and supervise nonlawyer staff and conflict of interest). And finally,

as noted above, the discipline requested was a result of negotiations

between the State Bar and Brock.

Accordingly, we accept the petition for voluntary discipline and

direct that Brock receive a Review Board reprimand in accordance

5 with Bar Rules 4-102 (b) (4) and 4-220 (b) for his admitted violations

of Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 5.3.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Review Board

reprimand. All the Justices concur.

Decided July 1, 2019.

Review Board reprimand.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William

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

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

State Bar of Georgia.