In the Matter of Ramon David Sammons Jr

Ramon David Sammons Jr., a Georgia lawyer, faced a State Bar disciplinary complaint accusing him of neglecting an elderly client's nursing home injury case, failing to communicate, and practicing law while suspended. When the Bar could not personally find and serve him, it served him by publication instead. A special master overseeing the case initially told the Bar to try harder to personally serve Sammons, and the Bar then found his home address and served him there. Sammons filed an answer within 30 days of that personal service, but the special master later entered a default against him anyway and recommended disbarment. A Review Board disagreed and recommended vacating the default. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed that Sammons was not actually in default when the order was entered, because his answer came in time after the personal service the Bar chose to pursue. The Court vacated the default order and the disbarment recommendation and sent the case back for a hearing on the merits.

The court held that once the State Bar chose to pursue additional personal service on Sammons and he timely answered within 30 days of that service, he was not in default, so the special master erred in later entering a default order against him based on the earlier service by publication.

The ruling means the Georgia lawyer will get a hearing on the actual misconduct allegations rather than automatic disbarment by default. It also signals to the State Bar and special masters that once a lawyer is found and properly served and answers in time, default cannot later be imposed based on earlier, abandoned service attempts.

Vacated and remanded with direction

1. The court explained that under the State Bar's disciplinary rules, the Bar may serve a lawyer by publication if personal service cannot be perfected, and can seek default if the lawyer then fails to answer in time under that publication service.
2. However, once the special master suggested the Bar try harder to personally serve Sammons, the Bar chose to track down his home address and personally serve him there, which restarted the clock for him to file a timely answer under the Bar's rules (Bar Rule 4-212 (a)).
3. Because Sammons filed his answer within 30 days of that personal service, and the Bar's motion for default was still pending and undecided at that point, the court concluded he was not actually in default when the special master later granted the Bar's motion.
4. The court noted the Bar had a choice after the special master's email: stand on the earlier service by publication and seek review if the default motion was denied, or pursue personal service and give Sammons a new chance to answer; the Bar chose the latter path, and Sammons then answered on time.
5. Because the default was improperly entered, the special master's later report recommending disbarment, which relied on facts deemed admitted through that default, could not stand and had to be set aside along with the default order.
6. The court remanded the case so the special master can hold discovery and an evidentiary hearing to decide the actual merits of the alleged rule violations, rather than resolving the case through default.

• attorney discipline
• default judgment
• service of process
• State Bar of Georgia
• disbarment recommendation