Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Georgia Supreme Court has disbarred three lawyers, suspended another and reinstated the licenses of two.Among actions taken on Nov. 21, the court disbarred Frank B. Perry, rejecting a recommendation by the State Bar of Georgia’s disciplinary review panel for a one-year suspension. Perry, who lives in Tennessee but is not licensed to practice there, was found to have agreed to represent a woman on two Tennessee personal injury claims in 1999.A Georgia Bar member since 1980, Perry maintained an office near the Tennessee state line in Ringgold. In a per curiam decision, the court said evidence indicated that, after agreeing to accept two personal injury cases on behalf of a client who spoke no English, Perry did not investigate or develop any claims, file any suits or advise his client that a statute of limitations was expiring. The court said it had no evidence to support Perry’s claim that he had advised the woman, both in a written contract and orally, that he would proceed only after she paid filing fees. Citing these violations and two public reprimands in 1998 and 2000, the court found “a pattern of misconduct, the submission of misleading or false statements during the disciplinary process, a refusal by Perry to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and vulnerability of the victim.” The justices unanimously agreed to strip Perry of his law license.Reached at his Ringgold office, Perry said he would file a motion to reconsider. The case is In re Perry, No. S05Y1827.The court also concluded that Spurgeon Green III should lose his license as a result of a half-dozen disciplinary violations and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities’ investigative notices.In one case, Green was found to have told a client he had settled a personal injury case for $10,000; he gave the client one-third of the proceeds and told her he’d provide the rest within 90 days. He never again contacted the client or accounted for the funds, according to the court. Green had recovered his license only recently, following a 90-day suspension after he defaulted on a $160,000 malpractice judgment in Illinois, where he also had faced disciplinary action. The court’s decision stated, “The fact that multiple disciplinary cases are being pursued against Green simultaneously evidences a pattern and practice of wrongful behavior.”A woman at the telephone number listed for Green in court records said he was no longer at that number. He could not be reached for comment. The case is In re Green, Nos. S05Y1841, S05Y1842, S05Y1843, S05Y1844, S05Y1845, S05Y1846, S05Y1847.The court disbarred Atlanta practitioner Charles D. Best for eight ethics violations in which he, according to the decision, “accepted representation and fees, but took little or no action to pursue his clients’ cases.” In addition to abandoning his clients’ cases, the court’s decision also said Best had his telephone disconnected and vacated his office, leaving no forwarding address. The court noted that Best had filed a petition to surrender his license voluntarily, but it said the request was untimely. There was no answer at the number listed for Best on the court docket. The case is In re Best, Nos. S05Y1880, S05Y1881, S05Y1882, S05Y1883, S05Y1884, S05Y1885; S05Y1886, S05Y1887. SUSPENDED OVER ETHICSThe court accepted the recommendation of a special master that Atlanta lawyer Mark S. Fraser be suspended for 90 days after violating two ethics rules. Both violations could have been punished by disbarment.Fraser did not dispute evidence at a January hearing that in December 2003 he wrote six checks on his firm’s escrow account, none of which was honored by the bank. The total of the checks was $218.Before applying for reinstatement, Fraser must attend an ethics program and submit to an audit of his escrow account for the three years prior to July 7, 2004. Fraser could not be reached. His case is In re Fraser, No. S06Y0306. ANOTHER CHANCEThe court agreed to reinstate Atlanta practitioner Rose E. Goff following a one-year suspension. Goff’s license was suspended after she had scheduled a deposition for a client in an employment discrimination case without telling the client. Goff rescheduled the deposition twice, then failed to appear at the deposition, according to the court. Although Goff could have been disbarred, the court agreed with a special master’s report that she “had no prior disciplinary record; did not act with selfish motive or for personal gain; suffered from personal or emotional problems that contributed to her misconduct; accepted responsibility for her misconduct; demonstrated good character and had a reputation for professional competence and integrity prior to the misconduct in this case.”In reinstating Goff, the court noted that she had complied with all of the conditions prescribed for her to resume practice. Her attorney, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, declined to comment; there was no reply to a phone message left for Goff. The case is In re Goff, No. S04Y0541.The court also agreed to reinstate Atlanta attorney Steven H. Koval following an indefinite suspension issued in May 2004. Koval had been disciplined for three instances of accepting retainer fees from clients and performing little or no work for them.In lifting the suspension, the court found that “Koval has enjoyed a good reputation among his peers, serving in leadership positions in the legal profession; he has endured several significant physical and emotional set-backs since July 1998 which impaired his ability to work; he has taken steps to address those issues; he has been cooperative in these disciplinary proceedings; he has taken steps to refund the fees to the clients who filed the grievances against him; he has expressed remorse for his misconduct; and his actions do not appear to spring from a dishonest or selfish motive.”"I’m just happy to be reinstated,” said Koval, who was a sole practitioner before he was suspended. The case is In re Koval, No. S05Y0383.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.