In the Matter of Gregory Bartko

Gregory Bartko was a Georgia lawyer who surrendered his law license in 2014 after being convicted of federal fraud and securities crimes, receiving a 272-month prison sentence and owing nearly $886,000 in restitution. While temporarily on home confinement under the federal CARES Act in late 2020, he applied to the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants for certification of fitness to practice law again, and asked the Board to waive its rule against considering applications from people still serving a criminal sentence. The Board denied the waiver, and Bartko appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The court had to decide whether the Board was right to refuse an exception to its policy given that Bartko still had roughly ten years left on his sentence and had paid almost none of the restitution he owed. The court agreed with the Board and affirmed its decision.

The Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants properly denied Bartko a waiver of its policy against considering fitness applications from individuals still serving a criminal sentence, because he remained under a lengthy sentence for serious fraud offenses and had paid almost none of his restitution.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia will not let people still serving criminal sentences, even from home confinement, seek reinstatement to practice law, protecting public trust in the legal profession and signaling to other disbarred attorneys that unpaid restitution and incomplete sentences weigh heavily against readmission.

Denial of waiver affirmed

1. The court noted that the Board's policy against considering fitness applications from currently incarcerated individuals exists to protect the public from unfit lawyers, a core purpose of the Board recognized in prior Georgia disciplinary cases.
2. The court explained that letting someone practice law while still serving a prison sentence would undermine public trust in the legal profession, citing precedent that a convicted attorney continuing to practice does serious harm to public confidence.
3. Applying these principles to Bartko, the court observed that he was still serving his sentence (through home confinement under the CARES Act) with roughly ten years remaining, and that he had paid virtually none of the restitution he owed from his fraud conviction.
4. Because Bartko had not shown sufficient cause to justify an exception to the Board's policy, the court concluded the Board acted properly in denying his request for a waiver.

• attorney discipline
• law license reinstatement
• fraud conviction
• home confinement
• restitution