In the Matter of Jason Lee Van Dyke

Jason Lee Van Dyke, a lawyer licensed in Texas, Georgia, and other states, was arrested after police investigated a report he made about a theft from his truck, and he eventually pleaded no contest to filing a false police report. He asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to suspend his Georgia law license only until his criminal sentence ended, and the State Bar did not object as long as he later proved his sentence was finished. After his sentence was discharged, Van Dyke asked for even lighter discipline. But the court found problems it could not ignore: he had admitted violating his bond conditions, a Texas court found he caused a witness to disappear, and he had been separately suspended by the Texas Bar in 2019 without telling the Georgia court. The court refused to approve any of his proposed discipline and sent the case back for more investigation into these issues before any final punishment is decided.

The court held that the record did not support accepting Van Dyke's proposed voluntary discipline, given his admitted bond violations, a judicial finding that he caused a witness's disappearance, and his undisclosed prior suspension by the Texas Bar, and it remanded the case for further factfinding before any discipline can be set.

The ruling shows the Supreme Court of Georgia will not rubber-stamp lenient discipline deals when a lawyer's history includes unresolved misconduct or undisclosed sanctions elsewhere. It signals to lawyers licensed in multiple states that they must fully disclose out-of-state discipline or risk harsher scrutiny in Georgia.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; remanded for factfinding

1. The court explained that under its usual practice, it rejects proposed discipline that would end before an attorney's underlying criminal sentence or probation is complete, citing prior cases like In the Matter of Richbourg, so approving Van Dyke's original request was already questionable.
2. Because Van Dyke's criminal sentence was discharged after he filed his petition, accepting his proposed suspension now would mean his punishment expired before it ever took effect, which the court found unacceptable, especially since he remains on probated suspension in three other jurisdictions.
3. The court identified that Van Dyke's admitted violation of his bond conditions and a Texas court's determination that he caused a witness to become unavailable (forfeiture by wrongdoing, a rule allowing use of certain evidence when a party intentionally makes a witness unavailable) showed a troubling disregard for the legal process that needed more investigation.
4. The court found that Van Dyke had been suspended by the Texas Bar in a separate 2019 proceeding but never disclosed this to Georgia, potentially violating Rule 9.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires lawyers to promptly report out-of-state discipline to the State Bar of Georgia.
5. Because these unresolved questions about Van Dyke's conduct and disclosure obligations made it impossible to determine an appropriate sanction, the court rejected the petition and sent the matter back to the Special Master to gather more facts on all four specified issues.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• law license suspension
• false police report
• voluntary discipline petition