In THE MATTER OF JAMES HOWARD SINNOTT (Two Cases)

James Sinnott, a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1999, was convicted in federal court in Atlanta of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and multiple counts of filing or assisting false tax returns. Because a felony conviction is automatically a violation of the state's rules for lawyers, a Special Master held a hearing and recommended that Sinnott be suspended from practicing law until his pending direct appeal of the conviction is decided. Sinnott had also filed his own petition asking for the same discipline. Neither Sinnott nor the State Bar objected to the Special Master's recommendation. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the recommendation, ordered the suspension, and dismissed Sinnott's separate petition as no longer necessary since the same relief was already granted through the Special Master's case.

A lawyer convicted of a felony, even while a direct appeal of that conviction is pending, may be suspended from practicing law until the appeal is resolved, consistent with the Bar's rule making felony conviction itself a disciplinary violation.

The ruling means Sinnott cannot practice law in Georgia while his criminal appeal is pending, protecting clients and the public from a lawyer facing serious federal fraud and tax convictions, and it confirms how Georgia handles attorneys convicted of felonies while appeals are still ongoing.

Interim suspension imposed; separate petition dismissed as moot

1. Georgia's professional conduct rules (Rule 8.4(a)(2)) make it a violation for a lawyer to be convicted of a felony, and a Special Master is appointed under Bar Rule 4-106(a) to hold a hearing and recommend discipline once such a conviction occurs.
2. After an evidentiary hearing, the Special Master found Sinnott had been convicted of multiple federal felonies involving fraud and false tax filings, and noted his direct appeal of those convictions was still pending.
3. Because Sinnott's appeal was unresolved, the Special Master recommended a suspension lasting only until the appeal is decided, rather than permanent discipline, following the approach used in prior similar cases.
4. Since neither Sinnott nor the State Bar objected to this recommendation, and the court's own review of the record supported it, the court adopted the Special Master's recommended suspension.
5. Because Sinnott's own separate petition asked for the identical discipline already being ordered through the Special Master's case, the court dismissed that separate petition as moot, meaning it no longer needed a separate ruling.

• attorney suspension
• federal fraud conviction
• false tax returns
• State Bar discipline