314 Ga. 78 FINAL COPY
S22Y0803. IN THE MATTER OF SHERRI LEN WASHINGTON.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board, which
recommends disbarring respondent Sherri Len Washington (State
Bar No. 107007) for her multiple violations of the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) in connection with three separate
client matters. Despite being personally served with the formal
complaint, Washington, who has been a member of the State Bar
since 2007, failed to timely answer or otherwise respond, and the
special master, Catherine Koura, therefore found her to be in default
such that the factual allegations and the disciplinary violations
charged in the formal complaint were deemed admitted. See Bar
Rule 4-212 (a). After assessing Washington’s conduct in the context
of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d
232) (1996) (stating that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for
guidance in determining appropriate disciplinary sanction), the
special master recommended that Washington be disbarred from the
practice of law. Thereafter, Washington hired counsel, who filed
objections and initiated a late defense before the Review Board, but
counsel later withdrew and Washington failed to further support her
objections, which resulted in the Review Board’s correctly declining
to consider the objections and essentially adopting the special
master’s report and recommendation as to discipline. Washington
has filed no exceptions to the Review Board’s report and
recommendation, and we agree that the circumstances of this
matter warrant disbarment.
The facts, as deemed admitted by Washington’s default, show
the following. With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket
(“SDBD”) No. 7444, a client retained Washington to represent her in
a simple divorce case in March 2017. The client sought a division of
her husband’s 401(k) retirement account, temporary and permanent
2 spousal support, and division of marital assets, and she asked
Washington to file the divorce as quickly as possible because she
feared her husband would take steps to remove her from his health
insurance and to request a protective order because she feared for
her safety. Washington failed to file the divorce promptly, which led
to her client’s loss of her health insurance, and failed to seek a
protective order. As the case proceeded, Washington failed to keep
her client advised of the status of the case, failed to respond to court
notices, failed to exchange mandatory discovery, failed to attend the
pretrial status conference, failed to provide the required domestic
relations financial affidavit, failed to complete the consolidated
pretrial order required by the court, failed to respond to requests
from opposing counsel for this information, and failed to participate
in a conference call with the court on the subject of outstanding
discovery and the incomplete pretrial order. Eventually, the case
was set for trial on October 27, 2017, but neither Washington nor
her client appeared for the court date. The trial court granted the
3 divorce on terms which were very unfavorable to Washington’s
client.
Throughout this time period, Washington’s client was not
aware of the status of her case because Washington would not
respond to any of the client’s numerous calls or e-mails. Indeed, the
client discovered the final judgment of divorce on the clerk’s website.
When the client sent Washington a “screenshot” of the divorce
decree via text message, Washington acknowledged the text but did
not call her client. Instead, Washington immediately filed a motion
to reconsider the divorce judgment, which was unsuccessful. In
addition, Washington told both her client and the trial court that
she was sick on the evening of October 24, 2017, and therefore had
overlooked the trial notice, which was sent to her electronically on
that date, but her client found pictures posted on Facebook of
Washington at a sorority function the same night that she claimed
to be sick. Despite repeated requests, the client never received a copy
of her final divorce decree from Washington’s office, and she
ultimately retained new counsel and obtained, by default, a
4 malpractice judgment against Washington. The judgment has not
yet been paid.
With regard to SDBD No. 7445, the admitted facts are that
Washington was paid $515 to represent a client who had been
convicted of child molestation in 2011 and resentenced in November
2015. She was asked to perfect the record and pursue an appeal from
the new sentence — tasks that obviously were time sensitive. After
receiving payment of the fee, however, Washington stopped
communicating with her client and his family; the deadline to
perfect the record passed; and her client’s appeal was dismissed.
Washington has not refunded the fee.
With regard to SDBD No. 7446, the admitted facts are that a
client retained Washington in March 2019 to file suit against her
contractor for negligent work on her bathroom. The client was
worried about the statute of limitation and asked Washington to
proceed with the case as soon as possible. The client paid a retainer
of $3,000, but Washington failed to take any action in the case and
failed to communicate with her client. Eventually, the client
5 terminated the relationship and requested a refund of her fee in a
certified letter to Washington, but Washington refused to accept the
certified letter and did not refund the fee until after the Bar filed its
notice of investigation in this matter.
Finally, with regard to all three matters, Washington failed to
timely respond during the investigation of the grievances, and
despite being personally served with the notices of investigation in
each matter, failed to timely and properly respond thereto. Instead,
she submitted a brief statement regarding circumstances in her
practice, which did not specifically address the issues raised in these
three cases. See Bar Rule 4-204.3.
Based on those facts, we agree with the Review Board and the
special master that Washington violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3
of the GRPC, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), in all three of the underlying
disciplinary matters. Specifically, she failed to abide by her clients’
decisions, desires, and directions regarding the scope and objectives
of the representations; she failed to act diligently in filing, pursuing,
or responding in any of these clients’ matters; she failed to
6 communicate or consult with these clients (or respond to their
inquiries) about matters of importance in, or even the status of, their
cases; and she failed to properly and timely respond to the
personally served notices of investigation relating to each of these
matters. We further agree that Washington violated Rules 1.1 and
3.2 in SDBD No. 7444 because her lack of thoroughness and
preparation caused her competence to fall below the level reasonably
necessary for the representation and because she failed to take any
steps to expedite that litigation as requested by her client. Moreover,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
314 Ga. 78 FINAL COPY
S22Y0803. IN THE MATTER OF SHERRI LEN WASHINGTON.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board, which
recommends disbarring respondent Sherri Len Washington (State
Bar No. 107007) for her multiple violations of the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) in connection with three separate
client matters. Despite being personally served with the formal
complaint, Washington, who has been a member of the State Bar
since 2007, failed to timely answer or otherwise respond, and the
special master, Catherine Koura, therefore found her to be in default
such that the factual allegations and the disciplinary violations
charged in the formal complaint were deemed admitted. See Bar
Rule 4-212 (a). After assessing Washington’s conduct in the context
of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d
232) (1996) (stating that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for
guidance in determining appropriate disciplinary sanction), the
special master recommended that Washington be disbarred from the
practice of law. Thereafter, Washington hired counsel, who filed
objections and initiated a late defense before the Review Board, but
counsel later withdrew and Washington failed to further support her
objections, which resulted in the Review Board’s correctly declining
to consider the objections and essentially adopting the special
master’s report and recommendation as to discipline. Washington
has filed no exceptions to the Review Board’s report and
recommendation, and we agree that the circumstances of this
matter warrant disbarment.
The facts, as deemed admitted by Washington’s default, show
the following. With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket
(“SDBD”) No. 7444, a client retained Washington to represent her in
a simple divorce case in March 2017. The client sought a division of
her husband’s 401(k) retirement account, temporary and permanent
2 spousal support, and division of marital assets, and she asked
Washington to file the divorce as quickly as possible because she
feared her husband would take steps to remove her from his health
insurance and to request a protective order because she feared for
her safety. Washington failed to file the divorce promptly, which led
to her client’s loss of her health insurance, and failed to seek a
protective order. As the case proceeded, Washington failed to keep
her client advised of the status of the case, failed to respond to court
notices, failed to exchange mandatory discovery, failed to attend the
pretrial status conference, failed to provide the required domestic
relations financial affidavit, failed to complete the consolidated
pretrial order required by the court, failed to respond to requests
from opposing counsel for this information, and failed to participate
in a conference call with the court on the subject of outstanding
discovery and the incomplete pretrial order. Eventually, the case
was set for trial on October 27, 2017, but neither Washington nor
her client appeared for the court date. The trial court granted the
3 divorce on terms which were very unfavorable to Washington’s
client.
Throughout this time period, Washington’s client was not
aware of the status of her case because Washington would not
respond to any of the client’s numerous calls or e-mails. Indeed, the
client discovered the final judgment of divorce on the clerk’s website.
When the client sent Washington a “screenshot” of the divorce
decree via text message, Washington acknowledged the text but did
not call her client. Instead, Washington immediately filed a motion
to reconsider the divorce judgment, which was unsuccessful. In
addition, Washington told both her client and the trial court that
she was sick on the evening of October 24, 2017, and therefore had
overlooked the trial notice, which was sent to her electronically on
that date, but her client found pictures posted on Facebook of
Washington at a sorority function the same night that she claimed
to be sick. Despite repeated requests, the client never received a copy
of her final divorce decree from Washington’s office, and she
ultimately retained new counsel and obtained, by default, a
4 malpractice judgment against Washington. The judgment has not
yet been paid.
With regard to SDBD No. 7445, the admitted facts are that
Washington was paid $515 to represent a client who had been
convicted of child molestation in 2011 and resentenced in November
2015. She was asked to perfect the record and pursue an appeal from
the new sentence — tasks that obviously were time sensitive. After
receiving payment of the fee, however, Washington stopped
communicating with her client and his family; the deadline to
perfect the record passed; and her client’s appeal was dismissed.
Washington has not refunded the fee.
With regard to SDBD No. 7446, the admitted facts are that a
client retained Washington in March 2019 to file suit against her
contractor for negligent work on her bathroom. The client was
worried about the statute of limitation and asked Washington to
proceed with the case as soon as possible. The client paid a retainer
of $3,000, but Washington failed to take any action in the case and
failed to communicate with her client. Eventually, the client
5 terminated the relationship and requested a refund of her fee in a
certified letter to Washington, but Washington refused to accept the
certified letter and did not refund the fee until after the Bar filed its
notice of investigation in this matter.
Finally, with regard to all three matters, Washington failed to
timely respond during the investigation of the grievances, and
despite being personally served with the notices of investigation in
each matter, failed to timely and properly respond thereto. Instead,
she submitted a brief statement regarding circumstances in her
practice, which did not specifically address the issues raised in these
three cases. See Bar Rule 4-204.3.
Based on those facts, we agree with the Review Board and the
special master that Washington violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3
of the GRPC, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), in all three of the underlying
disciplinary matters. Specifically, she failed to abide by her clients’
decisions, desires, and directions regarding the scope and objectives
of the representations; she failed to act diligently in filing, pursuing,
or responding in any of these clients’ matters; she failed to
6 communicate or consult with these clients (or respond to their
inquiries) about matters of importance in, or even the status of, their
cases; and she failed to properly and timely respond to the
personally served notices of investigation relating to each of these
matters. We further agree that Washington violated Rules 1.1 and
3.2 in SDBD No. 7444 because her lack of thoroughness and
preparation caused her competence to fall below the level reasonably
necessary for the representation and because she failed to take any
steps to expedite that litigation as requested by her client. Moreover,
we agree that Washington violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) in SDBD No. 7444
when she made false representations to the court and her client
about an October 24, 2017 illness affecting her ability to recognize
the court’s e-mailed trial notice; when she made misrepresentations
to the Bar about attending status conferences in her client’s case;
and when she attempted to mislead her client as to the status of her
case after entry of the final decree. See In the Matter of Golub, 313
Ga. 686, 691, (872 SE2d 699) (2022) (addressing manners of
violating Rule 8.4 (a) (4)).
7 The record further shows that Washington violated Rule 1.5 in
both SDBD Nos. 7445 and 7446 because she collected a fee that was
unreasonable in light of the fact that she did no work in either case
and because in SDBD No. 7445 she failed to communicate a basis for
her fee to her client or his family. Finally, we agree that Washington
violated Rule 1.16 in SDBD No. 7445 because she failed to refund
the advance payment of a fee that she did not earn. We note that the
maximum punishment for a single violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment and the maximum penalty for a single
violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, and 9.3 is a public reprimand.
We further agree with the Review Board and the special master that
this case implicates Bar Rule 4-103 because Washington received a
formal letter of admonition in February 2013 and Investigative
Panel reprimands in May 2011, January 2013, and July 2015.1
We further agree with the special master and the Review
Board’s application of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
1 We note that the July 2015 reprimand involved two separate client
matters.
8 Discipline in this case. Here, the record demonstrates that
Washington knowingly or intentionally violated the duties she owed
to her clients, the courts, and the legal system and that her conduct
resulted in serious or potentially serious harm to her clients.
Moreover, there are no factors in mitigation of discipline and a
multitude of factors in aggravation, including prior discipline,
dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct,
vulnerability of victims, experience in the practice of law, and
indifference to making restitution.
Having considered the entire record, we agree that disbarment
is the appropriate sanction in this matter and is consistent with the
discipline imposed in similar circumstances. See, e.g., In the Matter
of Wadsworth, 312 Ga. 159 (861 SE2d 104) (2021) (disbarring
attorney, after default, where attorney abandoned several clients’
civil actions, forcing them to proceed pro se to their detriment; four
prior formal letters of admonition and other aggravating factors); In
the Matter of Larson, 305 Ga. 522, 522 (826 SE2d 99) (2019)
9 (disbarring attorney after default, where attorney accepted fee to
represent four different criminal clients but thereafter abandoned
their cases, failing to appear at hearings, to communicate with his
clients, or to respond to inquiries or notices from the court, and
where attorney “made misrepresentations to [one] client’s family
about the status of the matter” in violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4); one
prior disciplinary sanction); In the Matter of Lenoir, 282 Ga. 311,
311-312 (647 SE2d 572) (2007) (disbarring attorney, after default,
for abandoning two clients’ matters; four prior disciplinary
sanctions). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name Sherri
Len Washington be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to
practice law in the State of Georgia. Washington is reminded of her
duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
10 Decided June 22, 2022.
Disbarment.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D.
NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K.
Mittelman, James S. Lewis, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for
State Bar of Georgia.