In the Matter of Lawrence Edward Madison

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 27, 2017
DocketS16Y1679
Status200

This text of In the Matter of Lawrence Edward Madison (In the Matter of Lawrence Edward Madison) 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.

Bluebook
In the Matter of Lawrence Edward Madison, (Ga. 2017).

Opinion

300 Ga. 637 FINAL COPY

S16Y1679. IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE EDWARD MADISON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of the Review Panel of the State Bar, which adopted the

findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Report and Recommendation of

the Special Master, Claude M. Kicklighter, Jr., recommending that respondent

Lawrence Edward Madison (State Bar No. 465530) be disbarred for his

violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as set

forth in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4

(a) (2) is disbarment. Madison’s violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is premised on his

June 2012 conviction by a jury of felony child molestation and other offenses.

On October 1, 2012, this Court accepted Madison’s petition seeking voluntary

suspension of his license pending the appeal of his convictions, see In the Matter

of Madison, 291 Ga. 663 (732 SE2d 278) (2012). As part of his petition,

Madison, who was admitted to the Bar in 1993, acknowledged that his felony

convictions constituted a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) and agreed that “if one or both of his convictions is affirmed or he abandons his appeal, he will voluntarily

surrender his license to practice law.” See id. In an opinion issued on

November 20, 2014, our Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part

the judgment in Madison’s criminal case, affirming his conviction for felony

child molestation and reversing his remaining convictions. See Madison v.

State, 329 Ga. App. 856 (766 SE2d 206) (2014). The Court of Appeals issued

the remittitur in Madison’s case on February 9, 2015, and no evidence was

submitted in this disciplinary proceeding that would demonstrate that Madison

petitioned this Court or the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On May 11, 2015, in response to a motion filed by the Bar seeking to have

Madison show cause why he should not be disbarred, this Court issued an order

dismissing the Bar’s motion, but noting that Madison had failed to file a petition

to voluntarily surrender his license and suggesting that the Bar initiate

proceedings against Madison under Bar Rule 4-106. See In the Matter of

Madison, Case No. S15Y0970 (May 11, 2015). The Bar initiated proceedings

against Madison under Rule 4-106, a special master was appointed to oversee

the proceedings related to that petition, and, on September 21, 2015, a hearing

was held on the petition, at which hearing Madison refused to enter the

2 courtroom, citing concerns about jurisdiction and venue, instead submitting a

letter he had prepared that was then entered into evidence. Following the

hearing, the special master issued his report, concluding that the February 9,

2015 issuance of the remittitur by the Court of Appeals concluded Madison’s

appeal of his conviction, see In the Matter of Frantz, 271 Ga. 529 (520 SE2d

686) (1999) (“the term ‘termination of appeal’ as stated in Bar Rule 4-106 (f)

(1) includes only first level appeals through the United States Supreme Court

and does not apply to habeas corpus and similar collateral procedures that are

neither continuation of appeals nor second appeals”). In mitigation, the special

master noted that, prior to his conviction in the underlying criminal case,

Madison had not been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding, but

found that the vulnerability of the minor victim in that criminal case was a

decisive aggravating factor. In light of Madison’s violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2)

and the aggravating and mitigating factors, the special master determined that

disbarment was the appropriate sanction. In adopting the recommendation of

the special master, the Review Panel concluded that, although the underlying

misconduct of which Madison was convicted did not relate to the practice of

law, his misconduct did demonstrate an indifference to his obligations as an

3 attorney and negatively reflected on his honesty and trustworthiness. In support

of the suggested discipline, the Review Panel cited, as had the special master,

to In the Matter of Jackel, 275 Ga. 568 (589 SE2d 835) (2002) and In the Matter

of Threlkeld, 273 Ga. 331 (539 SE2d 823) (2001). The Bar further noted that

Madison had, in connection with the 2012 disciplinary matter, agreed to

surrender his license under conditions that now have been satisfied.

Madison has filed in this Court a response to the Review Panel Report and

Recommendation, asserting that his appeal is still pending. Attached to

Madison’s response is documentation indicating that he has filed a motion

challenging his sentence on the affirmed child molestation count, which

sentence he maintains is illegal and void. Madison argues that, because a

conviction consists of both the verdict and the sentence, his appellate rights have

not been exhausted while his challenge to his sentence remains pending.

Madison next reiterates his argument that neither venue nor personal jurisdiction

was proper in the proceedings before the special master, such that he was

deprived of a jurisdictionally adequate hearing. Finally, Madison argues that the

reliance by the special master and Review Panel on Jackel and Threlkeld is

misplaced, as those cases involved violations of both the law and the

4 attorney-client relationship, whereas his criminal matter in no way implicated

his relationships with his clients.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the

name of Lawrence Edward Madison be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Madison is reminded of his

duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

Decided February 27, 2017.

Disbarment.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett,

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

In Re Jackel
569 S.E.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
In Re Threlkeld
539 S.E.2d 823 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
In re Frantz
520 S.E.2d 686 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)
In re Madison
732 S.E.2d 278 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2012)
In re Madison
797 S.E.2d 476 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)
Madison v. State
766 S.E.2d 206 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In the Matter of Lawrence Edward Madison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-lawrence-edward-madison-ga-2017.