NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: July 22, 2025
S25Y0879. IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIN ALLEN CHIN.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (“Review
Board”), which reviewed the report and recommendation of Special
Master Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge and recommended that Justin
Allen Chin (State Bar No. 886274) be disbarred for his conduct in
connection with eight separate client matters. The formal
complaints upon which these disciplinary proceedings were based
alleged that Chin, who has been a member of the State Bar since
2012, violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), 1.5 (a), 1.5 (b), 1.8 (a), 1.8
(b), 1.8 (j), 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II)
(b), 1.16 (c), 1.16 (d), 3.2, and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct (“GRPC” or “Rules”) found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.5
(b), 1.8 (a), 1.8 (j), 1.16 (c), 1.16 (d), and 3.2 is a public reprimand.
The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.8 (b),
1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), and 8.4
(a) (4) is disbarment. Although Chin acknowledged service of the
formal complaints, he failed to timely file his answers, and the
Special Master granted the State Bar’s motion for default, such that
the Rule violations charged were deemed admitted.
Following an evidentiary hearing on aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, the Special Master determined that most
of Chin’s GRPC violations were due to negligence and that Chin’s
conduct did not cause actual injury to his clients, and he
recommended that Chin receive an 18-month suspension from the
practice of law. The State Bar requested review by the Review
Board, which concluded that the Special Master’s determinations as
to Chin’s mental state and the injuries his misconduct caused were
clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. Rather, the
Review Board determined that Chin acted knowingly in most
2 instances; that Chin caused actual, or the potential for, injury to his
clients; that additional aggravating factors existed; and that
disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
Chin has filed in this Court exceptions to the Review Board’s
report and recommendation, contending that the Special Master
properly assessed his mental state and the lack of injury to his
clients, that one of the aggravating factors the Review Board
determined applied was not applicable, and that an 18-month
suspension is appropriate. In response, the State Bar argues that
the Review Board correctly concluded that Chin’s actions were
knowing, that Chin’s conduct caused actual, or the potential for,
injury to his clients, that additional aggravating factors applied, and
that disbarment is appropriate.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the Review
Board that the Special Master clearly erred in his determinations as
to Chin’s mental state and the injury caused by his conduct because
those findings were unsupported by the record. Further, we agree
3 with the Review Board that disbarment is the appropriate sanction
for Chin’s multiple GRPC violations.
1. Procedural History
Between May 31, 2023, and June 5, 2023, the State Bar filed
eight formal complaints charging Chin with violations of Rules 1.2
(a) (a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope
and objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as
to the means by which they are to be pursued); 1.3 (a lawyer shall
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client); 1.4 (a) (a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information); 1.5 (a) (a lawyer shall not make an
agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an
unreasonable amount for expenses); 1.5 (b) (the scope of the
representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for
which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the
client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation); 1.8 (a) (a lawyer shall not
4 knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other
pecuniary interest adverse to a client); 1.8 (b) (a lawyer shall not use
information gained in the professional relationship with a client to
the disadvantage of the client); 1.8 (j) (a lawyer shall not acquire a
proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of
litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client); 1.15 (I) (a) (a lawyer
shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are
in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation
separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other property); 1.15 (I) (c)
(upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
third person); 1.15 (I) (d) (when in the course of representation a
lawyer is in possession of funds or other property in which both the
lawyer and a client or a third person claim interest, the property
shall be kept separate by the lawyer until there is an accounting and
severance of their interests); 1.15 (II) (a) (all funds held by a lawyer
for a client shall be deposited in and administered from a trust
account); 1.15 (II) (b) (no personal funds shall ever be deposited in a
5 lawyer’s trust account, except that unearned attorney fees may be
so held until the same are earned); 1.16 (c) (when a lawyer
withdraws it shall be done in compliance with applicable laws and
Rules); 1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s
interests and surrender papers and property to which the client is
entitled and refund any advance payment of a fee that has not been
earned); 3.2 (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite
litigation consistent with the interests of the client); and 8.4 (a) (4)
(it shall be a violation of the Rules for a lawyer to engage in
professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation). Chin acknowledged service of the complaints,
but failed to file timely answers by July 23, 2023. On August 17,
2023, the State Bar filed a motion for default pursuant to Bar Rule
4-212 (a). On September 22, 2023, Chin’s attorney entered her
appearance, and on October 3, 2023, Chin filed a response in
opposition to the State Bar’s motion for default, requesting that the
Special Master permit a ten-day extension for Chin to file his
6 answers. Following a hearing, the Special Master granted the State
Bar’s motion for default, finding that Chin’s request for an extension
was not filed within 30 days of service as required by Rule 4-212, he
never moved to open default, and he failed to provide any facts which
would provide a basis for opening default.1 The Special Master then
ordered an evidentiary hearing on the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, after which he submitted his report and
recommendation.
2. Evidentiary Hearing
At the evidentiary hearing, Chin testified that he had
substantial experience in practicing law, that he had worked in
family law for 12 years, and that he was the sole practitioner
handling the eight cases at issue and had full control of the IOLTA
and operating accounts in these matters. Chin further testified that
he represented the clients in these discipline matters in divorce
proceedings, some of which involved custody disputes; that, in the
1 Chin does not challenge the Special Master’s grant of default.
7 majority of these cases, there was a fee dispute and several clients
had to file arbitration claims to get a resolution on the dispute; that
he filed liens against his clients in four of these cases, all of which
were either struck down by arbitrators or released by Chin after
entering into settlement agreements; that, in several cases, he
received proceeds from sales of marital property and did not
promptly disburse the funds owed to his clients; and, in at least one
matter, his client has still not received any funds from the sale of
her marital property. Moreover, Chin testified that he is now aware
that he must provide his clients with regular invoices, and admitted
that at the time he violated these Rules, he was “more about money
than helping people.”
Five of Chin’s former clients testified at the hearing, as well as
the ex-husband of one of his clients. These clients described the
emotional and financial impact of Chin’s misconduct, with several
explaining that they had to pursue arbitration in order to receive
from Chin the funds to which they were entitled, hire new attorneys
for their divorce actions, and pay additional attorney fees. Further,
8 several clients stated that they believed Chin’s misconduct delayed
the resolution of their divorces. One client testified that she initiated
the divorce proceeding because she was in an abusive marriage, that
the proceeds from the sale of her marital home were disbursed to
Chin for later distribution, and that she has yet to receive any of
these funds.
3. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation
(a) Factual Findings
Based on the factual allegations in the State Bar’s complaint—
which were deemed admitted by virtue of Chin’s default—the
Special Master recounted that Chin represented the client in State
Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7611 in a divorce action.
On August 7, 2020, the opposing party sent discovery requests to
Chin, but he failed to properly serve responses to the requests on
behalf of the client. Chin eventually provided partial responses after
receiving a “Rule 6.4 letter,” but he failed to respond to a subsequent
letter and the opposing party filed a motion to compel discovery.
Chin failed to respond to the motion and failed to inform the client
9 about the motion. On December 4, 2020, the opposing party filed a
motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a motion to compel. Chin
failed to respond to the second motion or inform his client about this
motion. And, although the client attempted to contact Chin for
updates on her case multiple times between November 2020 and
January 2021, he failed to communicate with her. On February 12,
2021, the court placed the client’s case on a hearing calendar for
March 1, 2021. Chin did not inform the client about the hearing until
the morning it was scheduled. Chin and the client appeared for the
scheduled hearing, at which the court granted the motion to compel
and awarded attorney fees against Chin personally. On March 3,
2021, Chin filed a motion to withdraw from the client’s case, without
informing her of his intent to do so. On July 6, 2021, the opposing
party filed a motion for sanctions due to Chin’s failure to provide the
discovery requests and to pay the attorney fees as ordered by the
court. Chin did not respond or inform the client about the motion,
and ultimately the court allowed him to withdraw from representing
the client. Subsequently, the client filed a Petition for Fee
10 Arbitration with the State Bar and in June 2022, the client and Chin
entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Chin paid
the client $2,900 and released her from any financial obligations to
him for legal services.
For SDBD No. 7612, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.
In September 2018, the client’s marital property was sold, and a
portion of the proceeds was deposited into Chin’s trust account for
later distribution. After the final court order directing distribution,
Chin transferred the funds due to the opposing party from his trust
account to his operating account and then disbursed them. Per the
final order, his client was to receive $29,837.10 from the proceeds.
However, Chin sent a letter to the client informing her that he was
applying the funds to her outstanding legal fees. Chin’s total invoice
for his representation of the client from March 2018 to September
2019 was $31,124.80. This invoice contained duplicative billing, and
the client contacted Chin multiple times to discuss his fees and the
distribution of the proceeds. Chin failed to respond to the client’s
11 attempts to contact him, failed to provide her with an accounting of
the funds in his trust account despite her requests, and did not
disburse any funds to the client as he had disbursed them to himself
in payment of her invoice.
For SDBD No. 7613, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action
from April 30, 2020 to June 5, 2020, and September 30, 2020 to
January 8, 2021. On October 2, 2020, Chin failed to attend a court-
scheduled status conference and falsely told the client that the
status conference was cancelled. Chin also failed to complete
necessary discovery. During Chin’s four-and-a-half months of
representation, the client paid Chin $4,700 in attorney fees. The
client made repeated requests for invoices and a written agreement,
but Chin failed to provide any billing statements or invoices until
February 2021, at which point the client had terminated his
representation. This total invoice was for $15,410 and incorrectly
stated that the client had previously paid Chin only $3,800. The
invoice also contained duplicative billing and included fees for work
12 performed after the client had terminated Chin’s representation and
retained another attorney. Subsequently, Chin filed a lien against
the client for $11,610 for unpaid legal fees. The client filed a Petition
for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar and the parties entered a
settlement agreement, pursuant to which Chin executed a
cancellation and release of his lien, refunded $1,000 to the client,
and agreed to release the client from any financial obligation to him
for legal services.
For SDBD No. 7614, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a modification
and contempt action. The client had difficulty communicating with
Chin, and Chin failed to update the client on the status of the case.
On July 9, 2021, the client informed Chin that he was terminating
the representation. On July 12, 2021, the court entered an order
requiring the parties to conduct mediation within 45 days. Chin
failed to inform the client about the order, and on September 24,
2021, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Subsequently, the client
filed a Petition for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar, and in May
13 2022, Chin and the client entered a settlement agreement, pursuant
to which Chin agreed to refund the client $1,650 and to complete
and obtain a full and final modification for the client within three
months for no further charges.
For SDBD No. 7615, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.
Pursuant to the engagement letter, the client was responsible for a
$2,500 initial retainer and a payment of $300 per month. The court
awarded the client $15,000 for attorney fees and to pay a forensic
accountant, which funds Chin deposited into his IOLTA account.
Chin failed to use the funds to pay the forensic accountant and
instead applied the funds to pay his invoices. Subsequently, the
client filed a Petition for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar, and the
arbitrators determined that Chin was entitled to keep $12,835.65 of
the $15,000. On June 3, 2021, the client terminated Chin’s
representation and requested her case file, itemized billing invoices,
and a refund of unearned fees. Chin did not respond, and the client
made similar requests on June 7, July 9, July 12, July 20, and July
14 26, 2021. Chin failed to respond to these requests and, instead, filed
a lien against the client for her remaining legal fees. The lien was
later removed by court order, upon the court finding that Chin did
not recover property for the client that would justify the lien.
For SDBD No. 7703, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.
During the representation, the proceeds from the sale of the client’s
marital home were transferred to Chin, who deposited the funds into
his operating account instead of his IOLTA account. The parties
subsequently reconciled, and the client requested that Chin dismiss
the divorce action. Chin did not dismiss the action until after the
client terminated his representation. The parties then executed a
reconciliation agreement, pursuant to which Chin was required to
disburse $46,430.88 of the proceeds from the sale to the client. Chin
failed to disburse the funds and failed to respond to the client’s
multiple attempts to contact him. On February 20, 2020, Chin
transferred $46,430.88 to his operating account for the client’s legal
fees, but did not inform the client that he was retaining the client’s
15 portion of the funds as payment. Chin also failed to provide the
client with an invoice or billing statement prior to transferring the
funds to his operating account and failed to provide an accounting of
the funds in his possession. Chin then provided a total invoice for
$52,459.21 for his 14 months of representation, which contained
duplicative billing and billing for work performed when Chin was
not representing the client. Subsequently, the client filed a fee
arbitration proceeding against Chin. Prior to the arbitration
hearing, the parties entered a settlement agreement, pursuant to
which Chin agreed to pay the client $32,500.
For SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.
The court scheduled a final hearing on the matter and Chin failed to
consult with the client prior to or during the hearing. Further, Chin
was unprepared for the hearing and attempted to relitigate issues
that had already been determined. The court directed Chin to
prepare a draft final judgment and divorce decree for the court’s
consideration, and Chin told the client that he would send her a
16 draft for approval before submitting it to the court. However, Chin
submitted the draft before sending it to the client and without
obtaining the client’s approval, despite her requests for a copy of the
draft. On November 9, 2021, the court entered the final judgment
and decree that Chin had prepared. Pursuant to this judgment, the
client was required to refinance her home within six months and pay
her ex-husband $61,000 out of the refinance, and was responsible
for $11,871.32 incurred from the parties’ 2017 tax return. On
November 12, 2021, Chin and the client had a meeting by
videoconference, during which the client asked him to correct
certain errors in the drafted final judgment. Chin refused to make
any changes, as he had already submitted it to the court and the
court had already entered the judgment, and he requested that the
client pay him additional funds. The client terminated Chin’s
representation and requested that he provide her with her case file.
Chin failed to return the file. On November 22, 2021, Chin placed a
$7,500 lien on the marital home for legal services, which the client
discovered after she had listed the home for sale, as required by the
17 court order. The client then requested an invoice from Chin for his
one month of representation. Although Chin failed to provide the
client with an invoice or billing statement, she was able to obtain a
copy of the invoice from her closing attorney, which totaled
$14,663.50 and stated that the client had a balance of $13,163.50.
The invoice contained charges for work that Chin did not perform,
including charges from before he was retained as counsel, and
duplicative billing. Subsequently, the client filed an arbitration
claim and, although Chin agreed to participate in the arbitration, he
did not appear at the arbitration hearing or request a continuance.
On February 28, 2022, the arbitrator entered an award in the
client’s favor, finding that Chin violated his duty of care to the client,
that his invoice was not credible, that the client did not owe Chin
anything, that Chin’s lien violated the parties’ agreement, that the
lien was null and void, and that Chin was required to provide the
client her file. On March 3, 2022, Chin executed a cancellation of the
lien.
18 For SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master recounted that Chin
represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.
The client sold the marital residence and, on April 13, 2021,
$269,982.76 in proceeds from the sale were deposited into Chin’s
IOLTA account. Between April and December 2021, Chin withdrew
for his attorney fees $118,246.70 of the funds from the sale.
Although Chin was required to hold $202,749.02 for the client’s ex-
husband and other third parties, by the end of December 2021, the
balance from the proceeds was $151,736.06. On March 7, 2022, the
court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, which provided
how Chin was to disburse the funds and ordered that he make the
disbursements within five days. Chin did not disburse the funds
owed to the client’s ex-husband until March 15, 2022, at which time
he transferred funds from his operating account to cover the
shortfall in his IOLTA account.
(b) Rule Violations
Pursuant to Chin’s default, the Special Maser concluded that,
in SDBD No. 7611, Chin violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to
19 communicate with the client about her case and consult with her
about the scope and objections of his representation; 1.3 by failing
to act promptly and diligently in his representation; 1.4 (a) by failing
to keep the client informed about her case and failing to respond to
her requests for information; 1.6 (d) by failing to notify the client
that he was withdrawing from representation and failing to refund
unearned fees; and 3.2 by failing to respond to discovery requests
and court orders.
In SDBD No. 7612, the Special Master found that Chin violated
Rules 1.4 (a) by failing to respond to the client’s communications and
requests for an accounting of the funds; 1.5 (a) by charging the client
an unreasonable fee; 1.15 (I) (c) and (d) by failing to promptly deliver
the funds from the sale of the marital home and applying the funds
to his bills; and 1.15 (II) (a) by disbursing funds owed from his
operating account instead of his IOLTA account.
In SDBD No. 7613, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently in his
representation of the client; 1.4 (a) by failing to inform the client
20 about the status conference and telling the client that the conference
was cancelled; 1.5 (a) by charging an unreasonable fee; and 3.2 by
failing to conduct necessary discovery.
In SDBD No. 7614, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with the client and
keep him updated on the status of the case; and 1.16 (c) and (d) by
failing to properly withdraw from representation and failing to
refund unearned fees.
In SDBD No. 7615, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.3 by failing to pay the forensic accountant from the
fees awarded by the court; 1.4 (a) by failing to respond to the client’s
communications and request for invoices and her case file; 1.5 (a) by
charging an unreasonable fee; and 1.15 (I) (c) and (d) by failing to
provide an accounting and applying the funds awarded by the court
for the forensic accountant to his bills.
In SDBD No. 7703, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to consult with the client about the
disbursement of funds; 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently
21 in his representation; 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with the
client and respond to his request for information regarding
disbursement of the funds and closure of the case; 1.5 (a) by charging
an unreasonable fee; 1.15 (I) (a) and (d) by failing to hold funds owed
to a client separate from his own funds; and 1.15 (II) (a) by failing to
administer client funds from a trust account.
In SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to consult with the client about the
scope and objective of his representation and failing to provide her
with a draft of the final divorce decree before submitting it to the
court; 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently in his
representation of the client; 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with
the client and respond to her requests for a draft of the divorce
decree and a billing statement; 1.5 (a) and (b) by charging an
unreasonable fee and failing to provide an invoice prior to filing a
lien on the client’s property; 1.8 (a), (b), and (j) and 8.4 (a) by filing
a lien on his client’s property without providing notice to the client;
22 and 1.16 (d) by failing to return the client’s file after she terminated
his representation.
In SDBD No. 7705, the Special Master concluded that Chin
violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a) by failing to safeguard fiduciary funds,
failing to hold fiduciary funds separate from his own funds, and
failing to maintain complete records of such funds; 1.15 (I) (c) by
failing to promptly deliver the client’s ex-husband’s funds in his
possession; 1.15 (II) (a) by failing to administer fiduciary funds from
a trust account; and 1.15 (II) (b) by commingling personal and
fiduciary funds.
(c) American Bar Association Standards
After discussing his factual findings and conclusions of law as
to the Rules violated, the Special Master cited the framework set out
in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“ABA
Standards”), which provide that, when imposing a sanction, “a court
should consider the following factors: (a) the duty violated; (b) the
lawyer’s mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the
lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or
23 mitigating factors.” See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653
(470 SE2d 232) (1996). The Special Master then proceeded to
determine Chin’s mental state at the time he committed these
violations, and determined that—with the exception of his violations
of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and (d), 1.15 (II) (a) and (b), and 1.3 in connection
with SDBD No. 7615—Chin’s mental state for all other violations
was either negligent or, alternatively, that Chin’s mental state was
“not shown to be intentional or knowing.” In assessing the potential
or actual injury caused by Chin’s misconduct, the Special Master
determined that Chin’s violations regarding charging unreasonable
fees and using client funds to pay them, failing to respond to
discovery requests and attend hearings, and not paying the forensic
accountant in SDBD No. 7615 had the potential to cause injury to
his clients, but that in none of the eight matters did Chin’s conduct
cause actual injury.
The Special Master then determined that, in aggravation, Chin
had a selfish motive, based on his “charging of unreasonable fees
and resulting conduct”; displayed a pattern of misconduct, as he
24 engaged in a pattern of neglect, overbilling, and failure to properly
handle funds in his clients’ cases; and committed multiple offenses,
as he was charged with multiple Rule violations in eight separate
client matters. See ABA Standard 9.22 (b), (c), and (d). The Special
Master further determined that Chin’s lack of a prior disciplinary
record was “the sole mitigating factor in these matters.” See ABA
Standard 9.32 (a).
(d) Recommended Discipline
The Special Master then concluded that an 18-month
suspension from the practice of law, with the condition that, prior to
reinstatement, Chin complete the State Bar’s Law Practice
Management Program, was the appropriate sanction. In doing so,
he cited ABA Standard 4.12, which provides that “[s]uspension is
generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he
is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or
potential injury to a client.”
4. The Review Board’s Report and Recommendation
25 The State Bar filed exceptions before the Review Board to the
Special Master’s report and recommendation. The State Bar argued
that the Special Master erred in determining that Chin’s mental
state was negligent for the majority of his Rule violations; that the
Special Master erred in determining that Chin’s violations did not
cause actual injury to his clients; that the Special Master erred in
failing to apply as aggravating factors Standards 9.22 (h)
(vulnerability of the victim) and 9.22 (i) (substantial experience in
the practice of law); and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
Upon its review, the Review Board concluded that the Special
Master’s factual findings as to what occurred in the eight
disciplinary cases were supported by the record and his conclusions
of law as to the Rules violated were correct, but that the Special
Master’s analysis of the ABA factors was “lacking, if not absent, in
most of the analysis” and that his determinations as to Chin’s
mental state and the injury his conduct caused was clear error and
unsupported by the record. The Review Board then concluded that
Chin’s mental state was, at a minimum, knowing; that his violations
26 caused actual injury to his clients; that the two additional
aggravating factors presented by the State Bar applied; and that
disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.
5. The Parties’ Arguments before this Court
Chin filed exceptions in this Court to the Review Board’s report
and recommendation, arguing that the Special Master properly
analyzed Chin’s mental state and determined that it was one of
negligence in most instances; that the Special Master properly
assessed the potential or actual injury caused by Chin’s actions and
determined that Chin’s violations did not cause any actual injury to
his clients; that ABA Standard 9.22 (h) should not be considered in
aggravation; and that the Special Master’s recommendation of an
18-month suspension is appropriate. In response, the State Bar
maintains that the Special Master’s determinations as to Chin’s
mental state and the injury caused by his violations were clear error
and unsupported by the record, and that the Review Board’s
recommendation of disbarment is appropriate.
6. Analysis 27 (a) Standard of Review
We note at the outset that “because this Court recognizes that
the special master is in the best position to determine the witnesses’
credibility, it generally defers to the factual findings and credibility
determinations made by the special master unless those findings or
determinations are clearly erroneous.” In the Matter of Tuggle, 317
Ga. 255, 258 (2) (892 SE2d 761) (2023) (emphasis in original). This
Court will not, however, defer to clearly erroneous fact findings that
are unsupported by the record. And we afford no such deference to
the conclusions of law made by the Special Master or the Review
Board, reviewing de novo what rules were violated and what level of
discipline is appropriate. Tuggle, 317 Ga. at 258 (2).
(b) ABA Standards
We agree with the Special Master’s factual findings and
conclusions of law as to the Rules violated, all of which were deemed
admitted by virtue of Chin’s default. However, we agree with the
Review Board and the State Bar that the Special Master’s analysis
of the ABA Standards is lacking and that the Special Master clearly
28 erred in his determinations as to Chin’s mental state and the
injuries caused to his clients by his violations of the GRPC. While
the framework in the ABA Standards is not controlling, it is
“generally instructive as to the question of punishment.” See In the
Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 206, 213 (3) (a) (857 SE2d 212) (2021). As
mentioned above, this framework includes examining (1) the duty
violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the potential or actual
injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (4) the existence of
aggravating or mitigating factors. See ABA Standard 3.0.
Duties Violated. Although the Special Master omitted from his
report and recommendation any analysis of the duties Chin violated
through his GRPC violations, based on the record before us—which
includes the Special Master’s factual findings and conclusions of
law—we determine that Chin violated several duties owed to his
clients, including his duty of diligence, as prescribed in Rule 1.3; his
duty of communication, as prescribed in Rule 1.4; his duty to avoid
conflicts of interest, as prescribed in Rule 1.8; his duty to safeguard
client property, as prescribed in Rule 1.15; his duties upon
29 termination of representation, as prescribed in Rule 1.16; and his
duty of candor, as prescribed in Rule 8.4. See Tuggle, 317 Ga. at 273
(6) (b) (determining, upon review of the record, that attorney
“violated his duties of communication, his duties upon termination
of representation, and his obligation not to enter agreements
conditioned on dismissal of a pending disciplinary complaint”).
Additionally, Chin violated his duty owed to the public to maintain
personal integrity by failing to timely disburse funds owed to an
opposing party. See ABA Standard 5.1.
Mental State. Although non-binding, the ABA Standards
define “negligence” as “the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial
risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which is a
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would
exercise in the situation; “knowledge” as “the conscious awareness
of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without
the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result”;
and “intent” as “the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a
particular result.” ABA Standards, “Definitions.”
30 The Special Master concluded that—with the exception of his
violations of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and (d), 1.15 (II) (a) and (b), and 1.3
for SDBD No. 7615—Chin’s mental state for all other violations was
either negligent or, alternatively, “not shown to be intentional or
knowing.” Our review, however, shows that the Special Master
clearly erred in making some of his factual findings as to Chin’s
mental state. With respect to SDBD No. 7611, the record shows that
Chin was aware of opposing counsel’s discovery requests and the
court-ordered attorney fees awarded against him, yet he failed to
respond to the discovery requests or pay the attorney fees as
ordered. In SDBD No. 7612, the record shows that Chin transferred
proceeds from the sale of the marital property from his trust account
to his operating account and made the decision not to disburse any
funds owed to his client. In SDBD No. 7613, the record shows that
Chin lied to his client by telling him that the conference was
cancelled after he failed to attend it. In SDBD No. 7614, the record
shows that Chin was aware that the client terminated his
representation, yet Chin did not properly withdraw as counsel until
31 more than two months later. In SDBD No. 7615, the record shows
that Chin failed to pay the forensic accountant as ordered by the
court and, instead, disbursed the funds for the accountant to himself
and, rather than responding to the client’s request for her case file
and invoices, filed a lien against her for additional fees. In SDBD
No. 7703, the record shows that Chin received funds from the sale of
the marital property, transferred the funds from his IOLTA account
into his operating account, and did not promptly dismiss the divorce
action as requested by the client until after he had been terminated.
In SDBD No. 7704, the record shows that Chin was aware that he
was supposed to provide a draft of the divorce decree to the client
before submitting it to the court yet failed to do so. Moreover, Chin
was aware that the client later terminated his representation and
requested her case file, yet he failed to provide her with the file and,
instead, placed a lien on her home. In SDBD No. 7705, the record
shows that Chin commingled funds and withdrew for his own use
funds owed to his client’s ex-husband. Thus, we reject the Special
Master’s determination that most of Chin’s misconduct in these
32 eight disciplinary matters was committed with mere negligence
because the record belies that finding and instead agree with the
Review Board that the undisputed facts in the record show that Chin
acted knowingly in all eight matters.
Actual or Potential Injury. The ABA Standards define “injury”
as “harm to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession
which results from a lawyer’s misconduct,” and “potential injury” as
“the harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession
that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer’s misconduct,
and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably
have resulted from the lawyer’s misconduct.” ABA Standards,
“Definitions.”
The Special Master determined that Chin’s conduct in all eight
matters did not cause any actual injury, and that only a few of his
violations had the potential to cause injury. Here, the record and
many of the Special Master’s factual findings, however, do
demonstrate both actual and potential injury to Chin’s clients. With
respect to SDBD Nos. 7611, 7613, 7614, 7615, 7703, and 7704, the
33 record shows that the clients had to spend time and money to pursue
arbitration in order to obtain a refund from Chin of unearned fees
or in order to remove the lien Chin had filed against them. In SDBD
Nos. 7613, 7703, and 7704, for example, several of the clients were
billed for duplicative work and others were charged for work
performed before Chin was retained or after his representation had
been terminated. Moreover, several of these clients testified at the
evidentiary hearing about the emotional and financial impact of
Chin’s misconduct, with one client explaining that he “created a lot
of stress, worries, fear, and anxiety,” another client stating that her
experience with Chin left her “emotionally scarred,” and a third
client testifying that she felt that she hired Chin to do a job and he
did “just the opposite.” With respect to SDBD No. 7612, the record
shows that the client’s invoice contained duplicative billing and that
the client has yet to receive any of the proceeds from the sale of her
marital home, as Chin testified that he has not provided any
restitution to this client. Moreover, at the evidentiary hearing, the
client in this matter testified that Chin’s failure to disburse the
34 funds took a great toll on her financially, as she had hoped to use
the funds to take care of her daughter’s expenses. With respect to
SDBD No. 7705, the record shows that Chin failed to timely disburse
the funds owed to his client’s ex-husband, which at the very least
had the potential to cause financial injury. Thus, we reject the
Special Master’s determination that Chin’s misconduct did not
cause actual injury and agree with the Review Board that Chin’s
misconduct caused actual injury in most of these cases and potential
for injury in the other cases.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. We agree with the Special
Master’s determination that the sole mitigating factor in this case is
Chin’s lack of a prior discipline history, and we note that Chin does
not argue that any other mitigating factors are applicable. We also
agree with the Special Master that, in aggravation, Chin had a
selfish motive, displayed a pattern of misconduct, and committed
multiple offenses, and with the Review Board that, based on the
record, the vulnerability of the victims and Chin’s substantial
experience in the practice of law should be considered in
35 aggravation. See In the Matter of Melnick, 319 Ga. 730, 738 (5) (905
SE2d 645) (2024) (“[W]hether the facts constitute an aggravating or
mitigating factor is a matter we consider de novo.”). The evidence is
undisputed that these clients were in the midst of divorces and some
of the clients were litigating custody issues over their minor
children. See In The Matter of Barksdale, 318 Ga. 150, 154-155 (897
SE2d 415) (2024) (vulnerability of victim considered in aggravation
where client hired attorney to represent her in a contentious
modification of child custody action). Further, Chin testified at the
evidentiary hearing that he has “substantial experience in the
practice of law.” In considering these mitigating and aggravating
factors, we note that, on balance, the applicable aggravating factors
substantially outweigh the fact that Chin had no prior discipline
history.
(c) Appropriate Level of Discipline
To recap, the record in this case establishes that Chin violated
Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), 1.5 (a), 1.5 (b), 1.8 (a), 1.8 (b), 1.8 (j), 1.15
(I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), 1.16 (c), 1.16
36 (d), 3.2, and 8.4 (a) (4) in connection with eight client matters. In our
consideration of the factors relevant to assigning discipline we have
concluded that Chin violated the duties of diligence, communication,
and candor, as well as his duties to avoid conflicts of interest, to
safeguard client property, and upon termination of representation.
Further, we have determined that the Special Master clearly erred
in making the factual findings that Chin acted only negligently and
that his actions did not cause actual injury to his clients because
those findings were unsupported by the record. We also conclude
that the aggravating factors significantly outweigh the sole
mitigating factor.
In considering Chin’s several violations, the ABA framework,
and our previous case law concerning similar violations, we agree
with the Review Board that the Special Master’s recommendation of
an 18-month suspension is insufficient, and that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction for Chin’s misconduct. See In the Matter of
Proctor, 313 Ga. 637 (872 SE2d 691) (2022) (disbarring lawyer, who
had no prior discipline history, for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a),
37 1.15 (I) (d), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 in connection with three client matters);
In the Matter of Power, 314 Ga. 504 (877 SE2d 601) (2022)
(disbarring lawyer, who had no prior discipline history, for violating
Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (III), 1.16 (d) and
9.3 in three client matters). See also ABA Standards 4.11
(disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a
client); 4.41 (b) (disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client); 4.61 (disbarment is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client and causes
serious injury or potential serious injury to a client).
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Justin Allen
Chin be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law
in the State of Georgia. Chin is reminded of his duties under Bar
Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. Peterson, C.J., Warren, P.J., and Bethel, Ellington, McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ., concur.