In the Matter of Monte Kevin Davis

Monte Kevin Davis, a Georgia lawyer, sent a text message to a woman who was a former client, threatening to call U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and have her "picked up" if she would not talk to him. He sent the text on behalf of the woman's domestic partner, who was Davis's longtime friend and also a former client, hoping to pressure her into discussing a domestic dispute between them. The State Bar filed a formal complaint accusing Davis of several rule violations. Instead of contesting the charges, Davis admitted violating one rule, that lawyers may not act on a client's behalf merely to harass or maliciously injure someone else, and asked for a public reprimand. A special master reviewed the admitted facts and recommended the Supreme Court of Georgia accept that request. The court agreed and imposed the public reprimand.

The court held that Davis violated Rule 3.1(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct by sending a text message that served merely to harass or maliciously injure his friend's domestic partner, and that a public reprimand, the maximum sanction for that rule, was the appropriate discipline given the aggravating and mitigating factors present.

The case shows Georgia lawyers can face public discipline for using a client's or friend's dispute as cover to threaten someone, especially by exploiting a person's immigration status. It signals to attorneys and the public how the State Bar and courts treat such conduct as professional misconduct.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; public reprimand imposed

1. The special master applied Rule 3.1(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which bars a lawyer from taking action on a client's behalf that the lawyer knows or should know would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another person.
2. The special master found that Davis's claim he was not technically representing the domestic partner when he sent the text was undermined by his years of consulting with the partner on business and family matters and by the text's own language suggesting he acted on the partner's behalf.
3. The special master concluded that referencing the grievant's immigration status and threatening to call immigration enforcement had no connection to mediating the underlying domestic dispute, showing the text served only to harass or maliciously injure her.
4. Following the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, the special master weighed aggravating factors (dishonest motive, a vulnerable victim due to her undocumented status, and Davis's substantial legal experience) against mitigating factors (full disclosure, cooperation, remorse, and the remoteness of his prior discipline).
5. Balancing these factors, the special master determined that a public reprimand, the maximum penalty available for a Rule 3.1(a) violation, was the appropriate sanction, and the Supreme Court of Georgia adopted that recommendation.

• attorney discipline
• public reprimand
• immigration threat
• State Bar of Georgia