In the Matter of Phillip Norman Golub

306 Ga. 620

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: August 19, 2019
• Docket: S19Y1128
• Status: Published

Opinion

306 Ga. 620 FINAL COPY

S19Y1128. IN THE MATTER OF PHILLIP NORMAN GOLUB.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for

voluntary discipline filed by Phillip Norman Golub (State Bar No.

300503). Golub, who has been a member of the Bar since 1980, seeks

by this petition to resolve a disciplinary matter involving his failure

to complete client work, to adequately communicate with the client,

and to refund an unearned fee. Golub admits that his conduct

violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, and 8.4 (a) (4) of the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum sanction for

a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, while the

maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, and 3.2 is

a public reprimand.

As to the conduct underlying this matter, Golub acknowledges

that he was retained by a client in 2014 in connection with a matter

involving a transfer of real property, although he primarily communicated about the matter with the client’s son. Although the

client did not sign an engagement agreement with Golub, she paid

him $7,500 in legal fees and another $2,500 for his assistance with

several personal matters. In 2015, Golub filed two lawsuits on the

client’s behalf, in response to which were filed a motion to dismiss

and discovery requests, which were a prelude to the taking of the

client’s deposition, which Golub was unable to schedule for reasons

beyond his control. Golub subsequently received instruction to

resolve the cases as quickly as possible, but he instead continued to

extend the discovery period and made no effort to place the matter

on the trial calendar. Golub acknowledges that he did not always

respond to requests for status updates and other communications

regarding the client’s matters.

In March 2017, Golub was hospitalized for an extended period

of time, after which he stopped communicating with the client and

her son. During Golub’s hospitalization, a motion to dismiss his

client’s cases was placed on the trial calendar. Viewing the motion

to dismiss as likely to succeed, Golub filed a voluntary dismissal

2 without prejudice in the two cases on April 20, 2017, but failed to

communicate that information to the client or to her son until the

client’s son contacted him in June 2017. Golub filed renewal actions,

without consent, in October 2017, but the client had passed away in

the intervening time. As to the re-filed lawsuits, Golub states that

he failed to serve the defendants, to substitute a party for his

deceased client, to perform any more work on the matters, or to

update the client’s son on the status of the matters. Finally, Golub

notes that he did not have any additional communications with the

client’s son, failed to provide any billing records to the client or her

son, and failed to refund an unearned fee.

In mitigation, Golub notes that, during the time in question, he

was dealing with an illness the severity of which he did not recognize

for several months but which eventually required an extensive

hospitalization; that he did not have a dishonest or selfish motive;

that he is remorseful for his conduct; that he intends to repay the

client’s son to the extent that he is able; and that his sole prior

discipline, a 1999 Investigative Panel reprimand, is remote in time.

3 Given this admitted conduct, Golub seeks the imposition of a public

reprimand. In response, the Bar states that it believes that Golub’s

suggested sanction is appropriate in light of the purposes to be

served by a disciplinary sanction and under American Bar

Association Standard 4.43 for a matter in which an attorney’s

negligent failure to represent a client with reasonable diligence

causes injury or potential injury to the client.1 In aggravation of

discipline, the Bar notes Golub’s substantial experience in the

practice of law and his prior receipt of a reprimand. The Bar

recommends that this Court accept Golub’s petition and impose his

requested discipline, which it states is consistent with the sanctions

imposed in other similar cases. See In the Matter of Jordan, 305 Ga.

35 (823 SE2d 257) (2019) (imposing public reprimand for conduct

including failure to respond diligently to client requests for

information and updates, failure to perform necessary work, failure

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

(noting that this Court “look[s] to the American Bar Association’s standards for guidance in determining the appropriate sanction to impose”).

4 to provide correct information in filed documents, and an eventual

total failure to respond or perform client work); In the Matter of

Moncus, 296 Ga. 154 (765 SE2d 358) (2014) (imposing public

reprimand for failure to adequately communicate and consult with

client); In the Matter of Stewart, 301 Ga. 227 (800 SE2d 279) (2017)

(same).

However, this Court has two concerns. The first is that it is

not entirely clear from the admitted facts that Golub violated Rule

8.4 (a) (4), which concerns professional conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.2 See In the Matter

of Dorer, 304 Ga. 442 (819 SE2d 7) (2018) (not accepting

recommended Review Panel reprimand for a putative Rule 8.4 (a)

(4) violation without a full understanding of the facts); In the Matter

of Braziel, 303 Ga. 154 (810 SE2d 476) (2018) (petition for voluntary

2 In his voluntary petition, Golub states the following conduct violated

Rule 8.4 (a) (4): I admit that I violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) when I failed to correct [the client’s son’s] understanding of the status of the case and my efforts to get the case resolved, specifically the problems with the discovery as it related to [the client’s] health and state of mind and how it affected my efforts to get the case resolved.

5 discipline rejected where there was uncertainty about facts

underlying purported rule violation); In the Matter of West, 299 Ga.

731 (791 SE2d 781) (2016) (rejecting petition for voluntary discipline

where admitted facts did not show that lawyer violated rule he

admitted to violating). Second, we are concerned that Golub has

failed to fully repay the monies owed to the client’s son. In his

petition, Golub states he intends to “pay as much of the money” as

he is “able,” but states no intention of making the client’s son whole.

See, e.g., In the Matter of Cherry, 304 Ga. 836 (822 SE2d 823) (2019)

(petition for voluntary discipline rejected where there was lack of

information of how a third-party doctor’s claim to unpaid settlement

proceeds was resolved). Accordingly, the petition for voluntary

discipline is rejected.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED AUGUST 19, 2019. Petition for voluntary discipline. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.