In the Matter of Jason Lee Van Dyke

Jason Lee Van Dyke, a lawyer facing discipline in Georgia, admitted he violated a professional conduct rule because he was convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, meaning a crime that reflects badly on his fitness to practice law. He submitted three different petitions asking the Supreme Court of Georgia to accept a particular punishment rather than go through a full disciplinary hearing. The court had already rejected his first two petitions, finding that important facts were missing, including details about his conduct during his criminal case and a separate 12-month suspension by the Texas Bar that Georgia had not been told about. The court had ordered a Special Master to investigate those issues further. Instead of waiting for that investigation, Van Dyke filed a third petition proposing a 36-month suspension. The court rejected this petition too and sent the case back to the Special Master to finish the fact-finding it had already ordered, including resolving any reciprocal discipline issues.

The court held that Van Dyke's third petition for voluntary discipline must be rejected because the Special Master had not yet completed the additional fact-finding the court had previously ordered, and the case must return to the Special Master to resolve those facts along with any reciprocal discipline issues.

The ruling shows the Supreme Court of Georgia will not shortcut attorney discipline by accepting a lawyer's own proposed punishment while unresolved facts, including out-of-state sanctions, remain uninvestigated, reinforcing thorough oversight of lawyers' conduct.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; remanded to Special Master

1. The court recalled that in a prior opinion it had identified unresolved factual questions, including the details of Van Dyke's disrespectful conduct during his criminal case and an unexplained 12-month suspension imposed by the Texas Bar, and had ordered the Special Master, the officer who investigates and reports on discipline cases, to gather more facts.
2. Despite that remand order, Van Dyke filed a third petition asking the court to accept a specific 36-month suspension without waiting for the ordered fact-finding to be completed.
3. The State Bar asked the court to let the Special Master consider Van Dyke's request for reciprocal discipline, meaning discipline mirroring a sanction imposed by another state's bar, together with the pending disciplinary proceeding so a single combined report could be issued.
4. Because the necessary factual findings from the earlier remand still had not been made, the court concluded it could not yet determine an appropriate level of discipline and rejected the third petition, sending the matter back to the Special Master to complete the investigation and address reciprocal discipline.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• voluntary discipline petition
• reciprocal discipline
• Texas Bar suspension