S197166. IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY L. SAKAS (Three Cases)

306 Ga. 504

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: August 5, 2019
• Docket: S19Y1164, S19Y1165
• Status: Published

Opinion

306 Ga. 504 FINAL COPY

S19Y1164, S19Y1165, S19Y1166. IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY L. SAKAS (three cases).

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on the reports

of the special master, Paul T. Carroll III, who recommends that

Respondent Jeffrey L. Sakas (State Bar No. 622250) be disbarred as

a result of six State Disciplinary Board matters, which have been

pursued in three separate formal complaints. We note that this is

the third time in recent years that this Court has been required to

address disciplinary violations by Sakas, who has been a member of

the Bar since 1973. See In the Matter of Sakas, 296 Ga. 690 (769

SE2d 925) (2015) (Sakas I) (imposing a public reprimand); In the

Matter of Sakas, 301 Ga. 49 (799 SE2d 157) (2017) (Sakas II)

(imposing a six-month suspension and noting various personal

issues accepted by the special master in mitigation of discipline).

Here, the State Bar unsuccessfully attempted to serve each of the

formal complaints on Sakas personally at the address listed with the State Bar. The State Bar then properly served Sakas by publication

pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), but Sakas failed to file an

answer as required by Bar Rule 4-212 (a), so the State Bar sought

and obtained a ruling from the special master that Sakas was in

default. Accordingly, the facts and violations alleged in each of the

formal complaints are deemed admitted. Id.

As deemed admitted, the facts show that in multiple matters

Sakas purported to represent clients while he was suspended from

the practice of law due to a prior disciplinary violation. See Sakas

II, 301 Ga. at 51. With regard to two other matters, Sakas was

retained by clients but did not perform the agreed-upon work and

failed to respond to inquiries from his clients about the status of

their matters. When the clients eventually terminated the

representations, Sakas failed to return the unearned portion of the

fees they had paid. With regard to one of the clients, Sakas initially

attempted to refund the retainer to the client with a check that was

dishonored by his bank, and later claimed to the State Bar that the

client was not entitled to a refund as the retainer had been earned.

2 With regard to the other client, whose representation Sakas took on

while he was suspended from practice, Sakas submitted a response

to the Notice of Investigation indicating that he was working on the

client’s bankruptcy matter, while the evidence showed that the

client was proceeding pro se.

In another matter, Sakas was hired to assist a couple in their

efforts to recover an overpayment on their mortgage, but after Sakas

failed to take any action on their behalf, they terminated the

representation and demanded a refund. When Sakas failed to return

their retainer, they filed a petition for fee arbitration. While

suspended from the practice of law, Sakas answered the arbitration

petition with a letter in which he identified himself as an attorney

and made numerous false statements about the type and amount of

work he had performed for these clients. Sakas retracted some of

those misrepresentations at the fee arbitration hearing, but he still

failed to document any work he had actually performed on the

clients’ behalf, and was ordered to refund the entire retainer.

3 In the final matter, a client hired Sakas to handle the appeal

of an eviction order obtained by the client’s mortgage lender.

Although Sakas filed the appeal, he failed to respond to a dispositive

motion and advised his client to ignore the court’s order that the

client pay his mortgage payments into the court’s registry. As a

result, the court granted the lender’s motion for summary judgment

and issued it a writ of possession. Sakas later filed a separate

complaint in an attempt to stave off the eviction, but his request for

injunctive relief was denied and his failure to respond to a motion to

dismiss resulted in dismissal of the suit. When this client later

requested the return of his file, Sakas failed to do so, making excuses

that the special master determined not to be credible based on

Sakas’s consistent failure to respond to the State Bar in the matter.

Based on these admitted facts, the special master found that

Sakas had violated Rule 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16

(d), 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.5, and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct. See Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum

sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II)

4 (a) or (b), 3.3, 4.1, 5.5, or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, while the

maximum sanction for a single violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (II)

(c), 1.16 (d), or 3.1 is a public reprimand. Noting that these

disciplinary matters also invoked Bar Rule 4-103 — as Sakas had

also received two formal letters of admonition in addition to the

discipline imposed in Sakas I and Sakas II — the special master

looked to the ABA Standards for Imposing Discipline and found that

disbarment was the presumptive sanction given that Sakas had

attempted to practice law while suspended, converted unearned

fees, engaged in a pattern of neglect of client matters, shown a lack

of candor with clients and others for purposes of his own financial

gain at the expense of his client, violated Rule 1.3 despite previously

having been suspended for a violation of the same rule, and

counseled a client to violate a court order. The special master

identified no mitigating factors,1 but in aggravation found that

1 The special master who handled the matters disposed of in Sakas II

accepted as mitigating factors various personal issues, including Sakas’s health problems, the deaths of his parents, and an office move. See 301 Ga. at 50. But the special master’s reports in the cases here contained no reference to

5 Sakas acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, showed a pattern of

misconduct across various aspects of these matters, committed

multiple offenses, showed bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary

process by intentionally failing to timely comply with the rules or

orders of the State Bar, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature

of his conduct, and had substantial experience in the practice of law.

Thus, the special master recommended that Sakas be disbarred.

We have reviewed the record in these matters and agree that

disbarment is the appropriate sanction, particularly given the

number of violations, Sakas’s prior disciplinary history, and his

failure to engage honestly in the disciplinary process. See In the

Matter of Raulin, 299 Ga. 283 (787 SE2d 691) (2016) (attorney with

prior discipline disbarred for failing to act diligently in his

representation of multiple clients and refusing to refund unearned

fees); In the Matter of Brockington, 297 Ga. 649 (776 SE2d 185)

those personal problems other than to note that, in a response to the Notice of Investigation in one of these matters, Sakas cited health reasons for his failure to complete certain client work, and that, in another matter, Sakas cited an office move as a reason he could not provide a client his file, an excuse the special master here found not to be credible.

6 (2015) (attorney with prior discipline disbarred for abandoning three

clients’ legal matters, failing to respond to their calls, and refusing

to return unearned fees). Accordingly, it hereby is ordered that the

name of Jeffrey L. Sakas be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Sakas is reminded

of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).2

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019.

Disbarment. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K.

2 Formerly Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

7 Mittelman, James S. Lewis, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.