In the Matter of Nathaniel Watson Cochran

321 Ga. 675

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: S25Y0207
• Status: Published

Opinion

321 Ga. 675 FINAL COPY

S25Y0207. IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL WATSON COCHRAN.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (the

“Review Board”), which reviewed the report and recommendation of

the Special Master, Patrick H. Head, at the request of Nathaniel

Watson Cochran (State Bar No. 172515), who has been a member of

the State Bar since 2002. The Special Master concluded that

Cochran, who is in default, violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Georgia

Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC” or the “Rules”) found in Bar

Rule 4-102 (d) and recommended a one-year suspension based on his

abandonment of a single client (hereinafter the “Grievant”). A

maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, while

the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public

reprimand. The Review Board purported to adopt the Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but recommends

that Cochran receive a six-month suspension. Cochran has not filed

any exceptions to the Review Board’s report, and the matter is now

ripe for this Court’s consideration. Having reviewed the record, and

for the reasons discussed below, we reject that recommendation of

the Review Board and, instead, agree with the Special Master that

a one-year suspension is warranted.

A. Procedural History.

The record shows that in August 2023, the State Bar filed a

formal complaint against Cochran for violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4. A

Special Master was appointed, and while Cochran acknowledged

service of the Formal Complaint and the appointment of a Special

Master, he did not otherwise respond and file an answer, or request

an extension of time to file an answer. Accordingly, the State Bar

filed a motion for default, which was granted in January 2024. After

the Special Master e-mailed a copy of the proposed final report and

recommendation to the State Bar, counsel for the State Bar

contacted the Special Master, indicating that he had been in

2 communication with Cochran and that there might be mitigating

circumstances in the case. Thereafter, Cochran e-mailed the Special

Master and included a release showing that he had paid the

Grievant $7,750 as full settlement for any claims she had against

him, despite being advised that if he wanted a hearing on mitigation

evidence, he should file a motion. Nevertheless, a hearing was held

on mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and both the

Grievant and Cochran testified. The Special Master then issued his

final report and recommendation.

B. Special Master’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

By default, Cochran admitted to the following findings of fact.

Cochran agreed to represent the Grievant, on April 24, 2020,

regarding a dispute she had with a contractor she had hired for

home construction matters. Cochran was paid $4,500 as a retainer.

He advised the Grievant that he would send a demand letter to the

contractor, and if necessary, file a lawsuit against the contractor.

Cochran then prepared the letter and had the Grievant review it.

However, a copy of the letter purportedly sent to the contractor was

3 not provided to the Grievant. Two months later, Cochran told the

Grievant that the contractor had failed to respond to the demand

letter and that he would file suit against the contractor in the next

few days. When the Grievant attempted to contact Cochran for

information related to the case, he failed to respond.

In May 2021, Cochran admitted to the Grievant that he had

still not filed the lawsuit but would do so within the next month.

However, the Grievant has never received a copy of the purportedly

filed lawsuit and when she again attempted to contact Cochran for

updates regarding the status of her case, those requests for

information were ignored. In October 2021, the Grievant terminated

Cochran from his representation of her. She then repeatedly asked

Cochran to refund the retainer that was paid to him in 2020, but

Cochran neither provided the refund nor an accounting of the

retainer fee. Cochran also failed to provide the Grievant with a copy

of her file. The Grievant then had to file a civil action against

Cochran to recover the unearned fees she paid Cochran as well as

the attorney fees incurred.

4 Based on Cochran’s conduct, the Special Master concluded that

he violated Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client) and Rule 1.4 (a) (lawyer shall

reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the

client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client reasonably

informed about the status of the matter; and promptly comply with

reasonable requests for information).

C. Consideration of the ABA Standards and Recommendation

of Discipline.

The Special Master turned to the ABA Standards for Imposing

Lawyer Sanctions of the American Bar Association, which this Court

uses for guidance to decide the appropriate level of discipline. See In

the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). In

particular, the Special Master noted that ABA Standard 3.0

provides that a court should consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s

mental state, the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s

misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating

circumstances. The Special Master then concluded that under ABA

5 Standard 4.42, a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer

fails to perform services for a client or engages in a pattern of neglect

that causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

As for mitigation, the Special Master considered that there was

nothing to suggest that Cochran had a dishonest or selfish motive;

rather, he just ignored and abandoned his client. At the hearing on

mitigation and aggravation, Cochran testified that at the time of

representation, he contracted COVID-19 and that his father and

father-in-law had also contracted the virus, and that because of

trying to help them and himself, it became difficult to get everything

done for which he was responsible.

In terms of aggravation, the Special Master concluded that

Cochran had a prior disciplinary offense in the form of a Letter of

Admonition in 2023 for violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, and that this

showed a pattern of misconduct. Moreover, the Special Master found

that Cochran had substantial experience in the practice of law, given

he has been a member of the State Bar since 2002, and he served as

an Assistant Magistrate Judge from 2018 to 2023. Finally, the

6 Special Master found that he failed to comply in these disciplinary

proceedings, given he did not respond to the Formal Complaint after

acknowledging service. The Special Master also found it concerning

that Cochran testified, “he did not know what to do when he received

the Motion for Default, and so did nothing.”

The Special Master then noted that in prior, similar cases, this

Court has imposed a six-month suspension. See In the Matter of

Lewis, 313 Ga. 695 (872 SE2d 693) (2022) (accepting petition for

voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension for

violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 (d) in three separate matters,

where attorney presented mitigating evidence, including

cooperation with disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Kirby,

312 Ga. 341 (862 SE2d 550) (2021) (accepting fourth petition for

violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in four separate matters,

where attorney offered mitigating evidence including that he had

taken steps to address mental health and practice management

problems that led to his misconduct); In the Matter of Johnson, 303

7 Ga. 795 (815 SE2d 55) (2018) (accepting petition for voluntary

discipline and imposing a six-month suspension for violating Rules

1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.16 (d) and 5.5 in seven separate matters,

where there were significant mitigating circumstances); In the

Matter of Huggins, 291 Ga. 92 (727 SE2d 500) (2012) (accepting

petition for voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension

for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16, and 9.3 in

connection with five client matters, where significant mitigating

circumstances existed); In the Matter of Graziano, 299 Ga. 7 (785

SE2d 537) (2016) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and

imposing six-month suspension for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and

1.16).

In the instant case, the Special Master recognized that

Cochran committed fewer violations of the GRPC than did the

attorneys in the cases cited, but noted that in those cases the

attorneys admitted culpability, cooperated with the disciplinary

authorities, offered mitigating evidence, filed petitions for voluntary

discipline, and expressed remorse. Here, the Grievant had to file a

8 civil action to recover restitution, there was very little mitigation

offered, Cochran only partially cooperated with the disciplinary

authorities, he only expressed remorse at the mitigation and

aggravation hearing, and he failed to respond to the Formal

Complaint and the Motion for Default. Therefore, considering all the

facts and circumstances, the relevant ABA Standards, the Rule

violations, and this Court’s precedent, the Special Master

recommended that Cochran receive a one-year suspension. In doing

so, the Special Master recognized that this was a longer suspension

than in Johnson, supra — the most egregious of the cases cited above

— but there Johnson filed a petition for voluntary discipline and

there were significant mitigating circumstances. In sum, the Special

Master was of the opinion that recommending a six-month

suspension would be unjust considering what the other attorneys

did in addressing the grievances filed against them for violations of

the GRPC, and that attorneys should do all that is possible to

demonstrate their understanding of just how important a grievance

is against them.

9 D. Cochran’s Exceptions and the State Bar’s Response.

Cochran filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report and

requested review by the Review Board. He generally contended that

while he abandoned his client, his successful efforts at coming to a

settlement with the Grievant together with his remorse suggested

that a six-month suspension with conditions that he complete a Law

Practice Management audit and comply with its recommendations

and that he complete an appropriate CLE course of study on the

lawyer’s duty to the client was the appropriate level of discipline.

The State Bar responded that it maintained its position that a

six-month suspension would be appropriate but disagreed that a

one-year suspension would be excessive. The State Bar pointed out

that with respect to abandonment cases, this Court has imposed

sanctions ranging from reprimand to disbarment. See, e.g., In the

Matter of Moore, 303 Ga. 296 (811 SE2d 343) (2018) (on notice of

discipline, disbarring attorney who was in default and abandoned

six clients and demonstrated pattern of misconduct); In the Matter

of Jones-Lewis, 287 Ga. 581 (697 SE2d 836) (2010) (on petition for

10 voluntary discipline, imposing a review panel reprimand on lawyer

who abandoned eight clients). See also In the Matter of Golub, 313

Ga. 686 (872 SE2d 699) (2022) (on special master’s report and

recommendation, imposing a one-year suspension with condition to

repay client, for attorney who charged a fee of $7,500 and then

delayed and abandoned client’s matter).

E. Review Board’s Report and Recommendation.

After a review of the record and evidence presented, the Review

Board concluded that the Special Master’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law were supported by the record. The Review Board

then agreed with the Special Master’s analysis of the ABA

Standards, including his analysis of the mitigating factors that

apply to Cochran. The Review Board also agreed with the Special

Master that the Letter of Admonition for the same offenses could

show a pattern of misconduct, and that Cochran had substantial

experience in law, which were both aggravating factors.

Regarding the recommendation of discipline, the Review Board

noted that the Special Master found that this case is distinguishable

11 from all of the cases it cited, because the Grievant in this case had

to file a lawsuit against Cochran to be reimbursed and the lawyers

in those other cases all admitted culpability, cooperated with the

disciplinary process, offered mitigating evidence, filed petitions for

voluntary discipline, and expressed remorse. However, here, the

Review Board found that the record was clear that Cochran

admitted culpability, cooperated with the disciplinary process,

offered mitigating evidence, paid restitution to the Grievant, and

expressed remorse. The Review Board did not consider Cochran’s

default based on his initial failure to respond in the disciplinary

proceedings as an aggravating factor. Accordingly, the Review

Board recommended that Cochran be given a six-month suspension

from the practice of law and undergo a Law Practice Management

Assessment as approved by the State Bar within six months

following reinstatement.

F. Analysis and Conclusion.

Cochran did not file any exceptions in this Court. Therefore,

the matter is now ripe for this Court’s consideration. Having

12 reviewed the record and evidence provided in this case, we conclude

that a one-year suspension is the more appropriate discipline in this

case. We agree with the Review Board that Cochran’s default based

on his failure to respond to the Formal Complaint and the Motion

for Default is not, in and of itself, an aggravating factor.

Nevertheless, Cochran indisputably violated two provisions of the

GRPC, one that carries disbarment as a sanction; and he has prior

disciplinary history and substantial experience in the practice of

law, both aggravating factors. Moreover, given that his former client

had to file a lawsuit against him in order to be reimbursed, it

certainly cannot be said that Cochran made a good faith effort to

rectify the harm caused by his misconduct or that he took full

responsibility for his actions. See In the Matter of Melnick, 319 Ga.

730, 738-739 (905 SE2d 645) (2024) (concluding that “[attorney’s]

payment of money to his client [was] not a mitigating factor because

he did not make any good faith effort to make restitution or rectify

the consequences of his actions until after his client hired new

counsel to investigate a malpractice claim and had filed a grievance

13 with the Bar”). Accordingly, having reviewed the record and

evidence presented in these proceedings, Cochran is hereby

suspended for one-year from the practice of law. See In the Matter of

Golub, 313 Ga. at 694-695 (on special master’s report and

recommendation, imposing a one-year suspension with condition to

repay client, for attorney who charged a fee of $7,500 and then

delayed and abandoned client’s matter). See, e.g., In the Matter of

Jackson, 321 Ga. 256 (913 SE2d 688) (2025) (on special master’s

report and recommendation, disbarring attorney who abandoned a

single client, violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, and 1.4 (a), and had no prior

disciplinary history); In the Matter of Blain, 315 Ga. 475 (883 SE2d

315) (2023) (on notice of discipline, disbarring attorney who

abandoned a single client, committed violations of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3,

1.4, and 3.2, and had no prior disciplinary history). After this

passage of time, there is no need for Cochran to take any action

either through the State Bar or through this Court to effectuate his

return to the practice of law. However, we also recommend that

Cochran utilize the State Bar’s Law Practice Management Program

14 and other resources designed to prevent a future failure to meet the

professional obligations of a Georgia lawyer. Cochran is also

reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

One-year suspension. Peterson, C. J., Warren, P. J., and Bethel, Ellington, McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ., concur.

Decided May 28, 2025.

Suspension.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Russell D.

Willard, General Counsel State Bar Designate, William D. NeSmith

III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, William V. Hearnburg, Jr.,

Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State

Bar of Georgia.