In the Matter of Richard R. Buckley, Jr
This text of In the Matter of Richard R. Buckley, Jr (In the Matter of Richard R. Buckley, Jr) 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.
Opinion
301 Ga. 47 FINAL COPY
S17Y0418. IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD R. BUCKLEY, JR. PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a notice of discipline by
which the State Bar seeks the disbarment of Respondent Richard R. Buckley,
Jr. (State Bar No. 092905) for violations of Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), and 9.3.1 See Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
The State Bar served notice upon Respondent, but he failed to file a notice of
rejection. Accordingly, he is in default, he has waived his right to an
evidentiary hearing, and he is subject to such discipline and further
proceedings as the Court deems appropriate. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). For
the reasons set forth below, we disbar Buckley.
The facts as admitted by default show that Respondent has been a
member of the State Bar of Georgia since June 10, 1985. However,
1 The maximum penalty for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 5.5 (a) is disbarment. 1 Respondent is ineligible to practice law for failure to pay bar dues from 2015
to the present.
Furthermore, in State Disciplinary Board (“SDB”) Docket No. 6914,
Respondent represented the executors in a case pending in the Probate Court
of Cook County, Georgia. For his failure to respond to probate court orders,
a notice of investigation was filed and served on Respondent, but he filed no
response. Consequently, on April 26, 2016, this Court entered an order
suspending Respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis, which
suspension has not been lifted.
In SDB No. 6915, a client retained Respondent in September 2015 and
paid him a fee to represent her and file a civil action on her behalf. But as of
September 1, 2015, Respondent became ineligible to practice law for failure
to pay annual dues. Respondent took no action on behalf of the client and
has abandoned the matter the client entrusted to him. Nevertheless,
Respondent has not refunded the retainer fee the client paid, which
Respondent has not earned. A notice of investigation was served on
Respondent with respect to this matter, but he has not responded.
2 In SDB No. 6916, Respondent was retained by a client to prepare a
deed transferring ownership of real property from another individual to the
client. After receiving a retainer fee on February 3, 2015, Respondent has
not communicated at all with the client, has taken no action on the client’s
behalf, and has not refunded the fee that was paid. A notice of investigation
was served on Respondent with respect to this matter, but he has not
responded.
In SDB No. 6917, a client retained Respondent in April 2015 and paid
him a fee for Respondent to represent him and file a civil action on his
behalf. The client also entrusted to Respondent certain documents that
support his claim. Respondent has taken no action on the client’s behalf, has
abandoned the matter the client entrusted to him, has not refunded the
retainer fee, and has not returned supporting documents to the client. A
notice of investigation was served on Respondent with respect to this matter,
but he has not responded.
In SDB No. 6918, in March 2015, a woman paid a retainer fee to
Respondent to represent her husband in a pending criminal matter in Worth
County, Georgia. Respondent did not notify the client or the client’s wife
3 that he had become ineligible to practice law effective September 1, 2015.
Respondent has taken no action on behalf of the client and has abandoned the
matter. When the client’s wife became aware that Respondent had become
ineligible to practice law, she requested a refund, but Respondent has not
refunded the paid fee, which he has not earned. A notice of investigation was
served on Respondent with respect to this matter, but he has not responded.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the State Bar that
disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, the name
of Richard R. Buckley, Jr., is hereby removed from the rolls of attorneys
authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his
duties under Rule 4-219 (c).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
Decided April 17, 2017.
Disbarment.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Wolanda R. Shelton,
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of Richard R. Buckley, Jr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-richard-r-buckley-jr-ga-2017.