In THE MATTER OF GRADY ALEXANDER ROBERTS III (Four Cases)

Grady Alexander Roberts III, a Georgia lawyer since 1994, faced multiple State Bar disciplinary complaints. In one case, he failed to respond to motions in a wrongful foreclosure suit, let the case be dismissed, and never told his client about sanctions or fee awards entered against him. In another, an elderly client on Social Security hired Roberts to fight a mortgage foreclosure; he missed deadlines, failed to attend hearings, mishandled a bankruptcy filing meant to stop her eviction, and repeatedly kept her in the dark while her home was foreclosed and she lost multiple appeals. The State Disciplinary Review Board recommended disbarment, and Roberts raised several procedural objections, arguing he lacked fair notice of the charges and was denied due process protections. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected all of his objections and agreed that his conduct clearly violated rules requiring competent representation, communication with clients, and diligence, warranting disbarment.

The court held that Roberts's failure to respond to court motions, attend hearings, meet deadlines, and inform his clients about adverse rulings and fee awards violated rules requiring competent representation, diligence, and client communication, and that these violations, combined with actual client harm and multiple aggravating factors, warranted disbarment.

The decision removes an attorney from practice in Georgia and reinforces that lawyers who abandon clients' cases without informing them of critical deadlines, dismissals, or financial judgments face the most severe professional consequence. It signals to Georgia lawyers and clients alike how seriously the court treats client neglect.

Disbarred

1. The court first rejected Roberts's procedural objections, finding he received fair notice of the charges, the Bar presented sufficient evidence including stipulated facts and hearing testimony, and the Review Board independently reviewed the record rather than simply rubber-stamping the special master's findings.
2. The court also rejected Roberts's due process arguments, explaining that the criminal-case disclosure rule from Brady v. Maryland and the special prosecutor-conduct rule (Rule 3.8) do not apply to attorney discipline proceedings, which instead follow civil discovery procedures.
3. In the foreclosure case (SDBD No. 6963), the court found Roberts violated Rule 1.1 (competent representation) and Rule 1.2(a) (following the client's decisions and consulting with the client) by ignoring motions for sanctions and fees, missing hearings, and never telling his client about a fee judgment entered against him.
4. In the mortgage modification case (SDBD No. 7027), the court found Roberts violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3 (diligence), and 1.4 (keeping the client informed) by missing appeal deadlines, failing to appear in court, mishandling a bankruptcy filing, and repeatedly failing to tell his elderly client about foreclosure, fee awards, and dismissed appeals.
5. Applying the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the court weighed Roberts's knowing and intentional misconduct, the actual harm to clients, and multiple aggravating factors such as a pattern of misconduct and a vulnerable client, against the single mitigating factor of no prior discipline, concluding disbarment was warranted.

• attorney disbarment
• State Bar of Georgia
• client neglect
• foreclosure litigation
• legal malpractice complaint