In the Matter of Henry Lamar Willis

914 S.E.2d 309, 321 Ga. 309

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: S25Z0397
• Status: Published

Opinion

321 Ga. 309 FINAL COPY

S25Z0397. IN THE MATTER OF HENRY LAMAR WILLIS.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on Henry Lamar Willis’s

Application for Certification of Fitness to Practice Law pursuant to

Part A, Section 10 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice

of Law in Georgia (the “Rules”). Willis was admitted to the Bar in

2006 and established a law firm that year. In the fall of 2012, Willis

failed to respond to the State Bar’s Formal Complaint against him

related to his failure to properly maintain and disburse $30,000 in

settlement funds to a client and his improper conversion of the funds

for personal use. See In the Matter of Willis, 293 Ga. 781, 781 (749

SE2d 740) (2013). The special master overseeing the matter entered

an order of default judgment, such that the alleged facts in the

Formal Complaint were deemed admitted, see Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b),

and recommended that this Court disbar Willis. See id. On October

7, 2013, this Court disbarred Willis for his violations of Rules 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness

in representing a client), 1.15 (I) (a) (requiring a lawyer to keep

client funds separate from the lawyer’s own funds) and (b)

(providing that a lawyer may not disregard a third person’s interest

in funds), 1.15 (II) (a) (requiring a lawyer to deposit funds held for a

client in a trust account), and 8.4 (a) (4) (providing that a lawyer

may not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

deceit or misrepresentation) of the Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). See id. at 782.

Willis now seeks readmission to the Bar, claiming that he has

undergone a 12-year rehabilitation process since disbarment.

Following review of his Application and his appearance at an

informal conference, the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar

Applicants (the “Fitness Board”) voted to recommend granting

Willis’s Application. The Application is now before this Court for

final adjudication. See Bar Admission Rules, Part A, Section 10 (e)

(“[t]he Supreme Court shall make the final determination regarding

2 certification of fitness” of attorneys applying for readmission to the

practice of law).

In connection with his Application, Willis filed a statement of

rehabilitation in accordance with In re Cason, 249 Ga. 806, 808-809

(294 SE2d 520) (1982), in which he explains that “[b]etween the

years of 2010 and 2013 . . . [his] nearly seventeen . . . year marriage

. . . was clearly coming to an end,” “everything [he] had worked so

hard to build in [his] professional and civic life seemed to be on the

same treacherous path,” and he “fell into a state of analysis

paralysis.” Willis further states that, following his divorce and

disbarment, he lost his bid for re-election to the Atlanta City

Council, such that “[t]hree of the most significant accomplishments

of [his] life . . . had all come to a very difficult end and it all played

out very publicly both in television and print.” Willis also states that,

since his disbarment, he has paid all funds due; turned to prayer,

exercise, meditation, counseling, and journaling; developed a

business with his son; ventured into the world of government and

public affairs by opening a consulting business; served on the Board

3 of Advisors for a real estate development company; and was

approved to serve on the Atlanta Beltline Technical Advisory Board.

Also in connection with his application, Willis submitted letters of

recommendation from five attorneys and one Atlanta city council

member. All of these individuals have known Willis for at least 12

years and describe him as an “upstanding member of the

community,” an “excellent person . . . [who] has taken full

responsibility for any mistakes he may have made,” a “new and

better version of himself” following his disbarment, a “trusted and

respected” colleague, a man who has done the “‘[h]ard work’ and the

‘[h]eart work’ on his journey to healing and redemption,” and

someone who “has always generously given of his time and

resources.”

As part of its investigation, the Fitness Board provided notice

to the State Bar of Georgia and to the Bar membership and Chief

Judge of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit where Willis had practiced;

provided newspaper notice to the public in the area where Willis had

practiced; and sought confirmation from the Clients’ Security Fund

4 that no restitution was due. See Part A, Section 10 (d) (1)-(4) of the

Rules. The Fitness Board received no response from members of the

public or the judiciary, but the State Bar responded that, at the time

of Willis’s disbarment, he had one grievance pending against him,

which was “declared moot” based on his disbarment.1 The State Bar

also has informed this Court that it does not intend to reactivate

that grievance. The Clients’ Security Fund responded that Willis

owed $4,800, which he immediately paid after this debt was brought

to his attention. At an informal conference convened before the

Fitness Board, Willis took full responsibility for his past conduct and

explained that, since his disbarment, he has built a business,

created a better life for himself and his children, and reestablished

his reputation in the community. After considering Willis’s

testimony and written submissions, the Fitness Board concluded

————————————————————— 1 This grievance was based on Willis’s alleged failure to adequately communicate with a client in the course of a representation. As a result of the grievance, the Investigative Panel voted to issue an Investigative Panel Reprimand for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. It does not appear that the reprimand was delivered prior to Willis’s disbarment, and the grievance was placed on “inactive status” and “declared moot” on October 7, 2013. 5 that he had, by clear and convincing evidence, carried his burden of

demonstrating rehabilitation and recommended a Certification of

Fitness be issued to Willis for readmission. See In re Cason, 249 Ga.

at 808-809 (bar admission applicant bears burden to establish

rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence, and “rehabilitation

is the reestablishment of the reputation of a person by his or her

restoration to a useful and constructive place in society,” including

“[t]he requirement of positive action”).

Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that Willis

should be certified as fit to practice law in Georgia under the criteria

provided in Part A, Section 10 of the Rules. See, e.g., In the Matter

of Myers, 318 Ga. 704 (899 SE2d 691) (2024) (granting the

applicant’s certification of fitness to practice law under

circumstances like Willis’s). We therefore grant Willis’s Application

for Certification of Fitness and order that, upon satisfaction of all

the requirements of Part B of the Rules, including taking and

passing the Georgia Bar Examination, Willis may be readmitted to

6 the Bar as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of

Georgia.

Certification of fitness for readmission granted. All the Justices concur.

Decided March 18, 2025.

Certification of fitness to practice law.

John A. Earles, Kevin C. Wilson, for Office of Bar Admissions.

Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Bryan K. Webb, Deputy

Attorney General, Katherine P. Stoff, Senior Assistant Attorney

General, for Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants.