In the Matter of David J. Farnham

The State Bar of Georgia brought disciplinary charges against attorney David Farnham over two grievances, accusing him of numerous rule violations that could lead to disbarment. During the case, Farnham missed a deposition and gave incomplete discovery responses, citing serious illness. Without holding a hearing, the special master overseeing the case struck Farnham's answer and discovery responses as a punishment, which meant the Bar's factual allegations were treated as admitted, and then recommended disbarment. A Review Board that reviewed the special master's work thought the punishment was too harsh without more process and recommended sending the case back for more discovery. The Bar objected, arguing the Review Board had no power to recommend that. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed a hearing was needed, but only a narrower one: a hearing specifically on whether striking Farnham's pleadings was proper. It sent the case back to the special master for that hearing.

The court held that striking an attorney's pleadings as a discovery sanction, the harshest available penalty, requires a hearing on willfulness where the attorney offered explanations and partial compliance, rather than a total failure to respond; because Farnham gave explanations and partial responses, the case must go back for a hearing on the motion to strike.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia lawyers facing disbarment or other discipline generally get a hearing before the harshest sanctions are imposed for discovery problems, unless they totally ignored their obligations with no explanation, shaping how future bar disciplinary cases involving illness or scheduling disputes will be handled.

Vacated and remanded with direction

1. The court explained that its review of Bar disciplinary matters is not limited by the Review Board's recommendations, because the Supreme Court of Georgia has inherent and exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law and exercises ultimate discretion over attorney discipline.
2. It surveyed prior cases where it had upheld striking a lawyer's pleadings without a hearing, finding those cases all involved a total failure to respond to discovery or a complete failure to explain noncompliance, circumstances not present here.
3. Applying that pattern to Farnham's case, the court noted he had provided medical explanations, filed some discovery responses (though incomplete and unverified), and offered reasons for missing his deposition, meaning his conduct did not fit the total-failure pattern that justified skipping a hearing.
4. Because striking pleadings is the most severe discovery sanction under Georgia's civil discovery sanctions statute (OCGA § 9-11-37), which allows courts to punish parties who fail to appear for depositions or respond to discovery requests, the court concluded fairness required a hearing on willfulness before imposing that sanction here.
5. The court therefore vacated the special master's order striking Farnham's pleadings, her Report and Recommendation, and the Review Board's Report and Recommendation, and sent the matter back for a hearing focused specifically on the motion to strike.

• attorney discipline
• discovery sanctions
• motion to strike pleadings
• State Bar of Georgia
• disbarment proceedings