300 Ga. 479 FINAL COPY
S16Y0723, S16Y0724, S16Y0725. IN THE MATTER OF SHANINA NASHAE LANK (three cases).
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on Notices of Discipline
seeking the disbarment of Shanina Nashae Lank (State Bar No. 808541). The
State Bar attempted to serve Lank personally at the address listed with the State
Bar, but the sheriff filed a return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then
properly served Lank by publication, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii),
and contemporaneously mailed a copy of the service documents to her address
listed with the State Bar, but she failed to file Notices of Rejection. Thus, she
has waived her right to an evidentiary hearing and is subject to such discipline
and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-
208.1 (b).
The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Lank’s default, show that with
regard to Case No. S16Y0723, Lank agreed to assist a client in a civil suit and was paid $212.50 to do so. Lank instructed the client not to attend scheduled
hearings, Lank and the client failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, and, as a
result, the court entered a default judgment against the client. Lank informed
the client that she would move to set aside the judgment, but she failed to do so
and ceased communicating with the client. Similarly, in Case No. S16Y0724,
Lank agreed to assist a client in a civil suit and instructed the client not to attend
hearings. Lank did not reply to the client’s calls and e-mails, the court entered
a judgment against the client, and Lank did not inform the client of the
judgment. Finally, in Case No. S16Y0725, SunTrust Bank notified the State
Bar that it paid a $59.88 item that presented against insufficient funds in Lank’s
attorney trust account, which caused her account to have a negative balance of
$47.33. As to each matter, the Bar’s Office of General Counsel issued a Notice
of Investigation, but Lank failed to file a timely sworn, written response, as
required by Bar Rule 4-204.3, and failed to file a Notice of Rejection within 30
days following service of the Notice of Discipline, as required by Bar Rule 4-
208.3.1
1 On March 31, 2015, this Court imposed an interim suspension on Lank due to her failure to file a timely sworn, written response to the Notice of Investigation in Case no. S16Y0723. See In the Matter of Lank, S15Y1051 (Mar. 31, 2015). However, the interim
2 Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to
believe that, in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and S16Y0724, Lank violated Rules 1.3
(lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client and shall not wilfully abandon or disregard a legal matter entrusted to
her), 1.4 (lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of
matters and shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information),
1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take reasonable steps
to protect a client’s interests, including surrendering papers and refunding any
advance payment of fee that has not been earned), and 9.3 (lawyer shall respond
to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules), all of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). As to Case No.
S16Y0725, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that Lank
violated Rules 1.15 (I) (safekeeping of property of clients or third persons), 1.15
(II) (safekeeping of property in a trust account or IOLTA account), and 9.3. The
maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I), and 1.15 (II) (a) and (b)
suspension was lifted on September 29, 2016, after the State Bar filed its Notices of Discipline, because Lank filed an untimely sworn, written response to the Notice of Investigation in all three disciplinary matters, which was deemed an appropriate response by the Bar’s Investigative Panel. See Bar Rule 4-204.3 (d).
3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.15 (II)
(c), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In aggravation of discipline as to
each of the matters, the Investigative Panel found that the three matters, taken
together, reflected a pattern of misconduct.
Lank subsequently filed Petitions and Revised Petitions for Voluntary
Discipline in all three matters in this Court, in which she explained that she did
not receive and respond timely to the various notices because she was no longer
working and in the office. Lank does not dispute the facts contained in the
Notices of Discipline and admits that her conduct as a whole violated Rules 1.3,
1.4, 1.15 (II), and 1.16. As to Case No. S16Y0725, Lank asserts that the $59.88
item that presented against insufficient funds in her attorney trust account was
a re-occurring renewal payment for the law firm’s website hosting services and
that the money in the trust account was personal funds from a $5,000 loan that
was made to her and did not contain any client funds.2
2 Lank does not admit to violating Rule 9.3, but while she did eventually file sworn, written responses to the Notices of Investigation before filing her Petitions for Voluntary Discipline, she still is in violation of Rule 9.3, as she did not respond to the Notices in timely fashion as required by State Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a). Lank also does not admit to violating Rule 1.15 (I); the State Bar has not explained nor do we perceive the factual basis for that alleged violation.
4 Lank offers in mitigation that leading up to the hearing dates for her
clients in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and S16Y0724, she experienced serious medical
issues including anxiety disorder, panic attacks, dysthymic disorder, heart
palpitations, depression, diabetic complications, muscle spasms, and
gastroenteritis. Lank says that she was forced to request emergency leave and
requests for continuances for her clients; and her failure to show up for trial in
Case No. S16Y0723 resulted in judgment being entered against her client. As
to her client in Case No. S16Y0724, Lank says that she had another attorney fill
in for her and the attorney told her that a consent judgment was entered against
her client, but she failed to properly communicate this information to her client.
Lank further explains that, during this time period, she was being treated for her
medical issues; the clients at issue were part of the last group of clients that she
worked with and she did not take on any additional clients; and she failed to
adequately respond to the Notices of Investigation because she was not in the
office and did not receive any of the notifications.
Lank asks this Court to impose discipline ranging from a formal
admonition to a one-year suspension and, if she is suspended, that her
readmission be conditioned upon a board-certified and licensed mental health
5 professional providing a detailed, written evaluation concluding that she is
professionally and mentally competent to practice law. She also offers that, with
respect to the judgments entered against her clients in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and
S16Y0724, she will pay restitution to them in equal payments over a 12-month
period. Finally, she asks that, in the event that a one-year suspension is given,
the Court apply it nunc pro tunc because she has not practiced law since January
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
300 Ga. 479 FINAL COPY
S16Y0723, S16Y0724, S16Y0725. IN THE MATTER OF SHANINA NASHAE LANK (three cases).
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on Notices of Discipline
seeking the disbarment of Shanina Nashae Lank (State Bar No. 808541). The
State Bar attempted to serve Lank personally at the address listed with the State
Bar, but the sheriff filed a return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then
properly served Lank by publication, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii),
and contemporaneously mailed a copy of the service documents to her address
listed with the State Bar, but she failed to file Notices of Rejection. Thus, she
has waived her right to an evidentiary hearing and is subject to such discipline
and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-
208.1 (b).
The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Lank’s default, show that with
regard to Case No. S16Y0723, Lank agreed to assist a client in a civil suit and was paid $212.50 to do so. Lank instructed the client not to attend scheduled
hearings, Lank and the client failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, and, as a
result, the court entered a default judgment against the client. Lank informed
the client that she would move to set aside the judgment, but she failed to do so
and ceased communicating with the client. Similarly, in Case No. S16Y0724,
Lank agreed to assist a client in a civil suit and instructed the client not to attend
hearings. Lank did not reply to the client’s calls and e-mails, the court entered
a judgment against the client, and Lank did not inform the client of the
judgment. Finally, in Case No. S16Y0725, SunTrust Bank notified the State
Bar that it paid a $59.88 item that presented against insufficient funds in Lank’s
attorney trust account, which caused her account to have a negative balance of
$47.33. As to each matter, the Bar’s Office of General Counsel issued a Notice
of Investigation, but Lank failed to file a timely sworn, written response, as
required by Bar Rule 4-204.3, and failed to file a Notice of Rejection within 30
days following service of the Notice of Discipline, as required by Bar Rule 4-
208.3.1
1 On March 31, 2015, this Court imposed an interim suspension on Lank due to her failure to file a timely sworn, written response to the Notice of Investigation in Case no. S16Y0723. See In the Matter of Lank, S15Y1051 (Mar. 31, 2015). However, the interim
2 Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to
believe that, in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and S16Y0724, Lank violated Rules 1.3
(lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client and shall not wilfully abandon or disregard a legal matter entrusted to
her), 1.4 (lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of
matters and shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information),
1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take reasonable steps
to protect a client’s interests, including surrendering papers and refunding any
advance payment of fee that has not been earned), and 9.3 (lawyer shall respond
to disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules), all of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). As to Case No.
S16Y0725, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that Lank
violated Rules 1.15 (I) (safekeeping of property of clients or third persons), 1.15
(II) (safekeeping of property in a trust account or IOLTA account), and 9.3. The
maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I), and 1.15 (II) (a) and (b)
suspension was lifted on September 29, 2016, after the State Bar filed its Notices of Discipline, because Lank filed an untimely sworn, written response to the Notice of Investigation in all three disciplinary matters, which was deemed an appropriate response by the Bar’s Investigative Panel. See Bar Rule 4-204.3 (d).
3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.15 (II)
(c), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In aggravation of discipline as to
each of the matters, the Investigative Panel found that the three matters, taken
together, reflected a pattern of misconduct.
Lank subsequently filed Petitions and Revised Petitions for Voluntary
Discipline in all three matters in this Court, in which she explained that she did
not receive and respond timely to the various notices because she was no longer
working and in the office. Lank does not dispute the facts contained in the
Notices of Discipline and admits that her conduct as a whole violated Rules 1.3,
1.4, 1.15 (II), and 1.16. As to Case No. S16Y0725, Lank asserts that the $59.88
item that presented against insufficient funds in her attorney trust account was
a re-occurring renewal payment for the law firm’s website hosting services and
that the money in the trust account was personal funds from a $5,000 loan that
was made to her and did not contain any client funds.2
2 Lank does not admit to violating Rule 9.3, but while she did eventually file sworn, written responses to the Notices of Investigation before filing her Petitions for Voluntary Discipline, she still is in violation of Rule 9.3, as she did not respond to the Notices in timely fashion as required by State Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a). Lank also does not admit to violating Rule 1.15 (I); the State Bar has not explained nor do we perceive the factual basis for that alleged violation.
4 Lank offers in mitigation that leading up to the hearing dates for her
clients in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and S16Y0724, she experienced serious medical
issues including anxiety disorder, panic attacks, dysthymic disorder, heart
palpitations, depression, diabetic complications, muscle spasms, and
gastroenteritis. Lank says that she was forced to request emergency leave and
requests for continuances for her clients; and her failure to show up for trial in
Case No. S16Y0723 resulted in judgment being entered against her client. As
to her client in Case No. S16Y0724, Lank says that she had another attorney fill
in for her and the attorney told her that a consent judgment was entered against
her client, but she failed to properly communicate this information to her client.
Lank further explains that, during this time period, she was being treated for her
medical issues; the clients at issue were part of the last group of clients that she
worked with and she did not take on any additional clients; and she failed to
adequately respond to the Notices of Investigation because she was not in the
office and did not receive any of the notifications.
Lank asks this Court to impose discipline ranging from a formal
admonition to a one-year suspension and, if she is suspended, that her
readmission be conditioned upon a board-certified and licensed mental health
5 professional providing a detailed, written evaluation concluding that she is
professionally and mentally competent to practice law. She also offers that, with
respect to the judgments entered against her clients in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and
S16Y0724, she will pay restitution to them in equal payments over a 12-month
period. Finally, she asks that, in the event that a one-year suspension is given,
the Court apply it nunc pro tunc because she has not practiced law since January
2014 and, outside the grievances in these three disciplinary matters, all of her
ethical obligations have been met.
The State Bar has responded to Lank’s petitions. The Bar asserts that, in
aggravation, her admitted conduct in the three disciplinary matters shows a
pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses, see American Bar Association
Standards (“ABA”) for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 9.22 (c) and (d);
she did not submit prompt answers to the Notices of Investigation, reflecting a
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings, ABA Standard 9.22 (e);
and she had substantial experience in the practice of law at the time that these
events occurred, ABA Standard 9.22 (i). However, in mitigation, the State Bar
notes that Lank has no prior attorney disciplinary record, ABA Standard 9.32
(a); the Bar is not aware of any dishonest or selfish motive, ABA Standard 9.32
6 (b); she claims to have personal and emotional problems, ABA Standard 9.32
(c) and (h); she has stated that she will pay restitution to her clients for the
judgments against them, ABA Standard 9.32 (d), which the State Bar
understands to be $2,232.09 in Case No. S16Y0723 and $1,440.00 in Case No.
S16Y0724; and Lank is deeply remorseful and has exhibited good character and
integrity, ABA Standard 9.32 (g) and (l).
Based on the additional information from Lank’s responses and petitions,
the State Bar now recommends that, rather than disbarring Lank, this Court
accept her request for a one-year suspension with her proposed conditions on
reinstatement. However, the State Bar opposes Lank’s request for nunc pro tunc
application of any suspension, because she failed to provide adequate evidence
to show that she met this Court’s criteria for retroactive application. See In re
Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 156-157 (702 SE2d 136) (2010).
Having considered the Notices of Discipline along with the additional
submissions by the parties, we agree that a suspension of at least one year is the
appropriate sanction in these matters for Lank’s violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15
(II), 1.16, and 9.3. See, e.g., In the Matter of Ricks, 289 Ga. 136 (710 SE2d
749) (2011); In the Matter of Frazier, 273 Ga. 878 (546 SE2d 272) (2001).
7 Accordingly, we hereby order that Shanina Nashae Lank be suspended from the
practice of law in the State of Georgia for a period of at least one year, effective
as of the date of this opinion; we decline to impose the suspension nunc pro
tunc. See Onipede, 288 Ga. at 157. After one year, Lank may seek
reinstatement if: (1) she submits a detailed, written evaluation by a board-
certified and licensed mental health professional concluding that she is fit to
return to the practice of law, and (2) she provides evidence that she has paid
restitution to her clients in Case Nos. S16Y0723 and S16Y0724 for the
judgments entered against them, plus any accruing interest. When Lank
believes that these conditions for her reinstatement have been met, she shall
demonstrate compliance in a petition for reinstatement submitted to the Review
Panel, which will then issue a report and recommendation to this Court. Lank
shall not undertake the practice of law until this Court issues an opinion granting
her petition for reinstatement. See In the Matter of Fair, 292 Ga. 308, 309 (736
SE2d 430) (2013). Lank is reminded of her duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
One-year suspension with conditions on reinstatement. All the Justices
concur.
8 Decided January 23, 2017.
Suspension.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Rebecca A. Hall, Assistant
General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.