In the Matter of David Godley Rigdon

David Godley Rigdon, a Georgia lawyer since 2010, was indicted in Tift County on 13 drug-related counts, including felony violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and charges of bringing drugs into a correctional institution. He pleaded guilty to eight of the drug counts, the state dropped the rest, and he was sentenced to five years of probation. Rigdon asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to let him serve a suspension from practicing law, rather than being disbarred, citing his lack of prior discipline, his mental health struggles and treatment, his cooperation, and support letters from other lawyers. The State Bar and the special master who reviewed the case agreed a suspension was appropriate. But the Supreme Court of Georgia found the record contained almost no details about what actually happened, such as the facts behind his guilty plea, the alleged conspiracy, or the dropped charges about smuggling drugs into a prison. Without that information, the court said it could not tell whether a suspension was the right punishment, so it sent the case back for more fact-finding.

The court held that it could not approve Rigdon's requested suspension because the record lacked sufficient facts about the conduct underlying his guilty plea and the dismissed charges, so it rejected the petition for voluntary discipline and sent the matter back to the special master for further fact-finding.

The decision shows the Supreme Court of Georgia will not approve lighter discipline for lawyers convicted of felonies just because the Bar and a special master agree; it insists on a full factual record. This affects how attorneys facing criminal charges, and the Bar itself, must document misconduct before seeking reduced sanctions.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; remanded for further factfinding

1. Rigdon admitted violating Rule 8.4(a)(2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which makes a felony conviction itself a disciplinary violation, by pleading guilty to eight felony drug counts.
2. The court noted that while disbarment is the maximum penalty for such a violation, it has in past cases allowed suspensions instead when significant mitigating circumstances were shown, citing prior drug-conviction discipline cases.
3. The court considered Rigdon's mitigating evidence, including his lack of prior discipline, mental health diagnosis and treatment, cooperation with the Bar, remorse, and support letters, but found this alone did not resolve the key question.
4. The court explained that to judge whether a suspension (rather than disbarment) was commensurate with the misconduct, it needed to know the actual facts behind the guilty plea and the dismissed charges, including the alleged drug conspiracy and the counts about smuggling drugs into a correctional institution.
5. Because the record contained almost nothing beyond the indictment itself about these underlying facts, the court concluded it could not determine whether the requested discipline was an acceptable sanction and rejected the petition, sending the case back to the special master for more fact-finding.

• attorney discipline
• drug felony conviction
• State Bar of Georgia
• voluntary discipline petition
• license suspension