In the Matter of George Michael Plumides

George Michael Plumides, a lawyer admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1990, faced discipline over five separate cases of misconduct. He settled personal injury claims but failed to properly account for or pay out the money, missed court dates for criminal and traffic clients (leading to one client's arrest and another's license suspension), tried to pay a filing fee with a bad check, and ignored his clients' requests for updates. When the State Bar investigated, Plumides mostly ignored the notices and grievances, and he was formally served but never filed the paperwork to contest the charges. Because he did not respond, the facts against him were treated as admitted. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record and had to decide the appropriate punishment. It agreed with the State Disciplinary Board that disbarment was warranted and ordered his name removed from the rolls of Georgia attorneys.

The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who repeatedly abandoned clients, mishandled and failed to disburse settlement funds, and ignored State Bar investigations, given multiple aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.

Clients who hired Plumides for personal injury, criminal, or traffic matters were left without their settlement money, without legal representation at crucial hearings, and in one case facing arrest because their lawyer never showed up. The ruling removes him from practicing law in Georgia entirely.

Disbarred

1. Because Plumides was personally served with the Notice of Discipline but never filed a Notice of Rejection, he was in default under the State Bar's disciplinary rules (Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b)), meaning he waived his right to a hearing and the facts alleged against him were deemed admitted.
2. The deemed-admitted facts showed a pattern across five separate matters: failing to account for and disburse settlement money, missing court appearances that harmed clients, writing a bad check for filing fees, and ignoring both clients and Bar investigators.
3. This conduct violated several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, diligence, and safekeeping client funds (Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.15), a rule against violating disciplinary rules generally (Rule 8.4(a)(4)), and a rule requiring cooperation with Bar investigations (Rule 9.3), most of which carry disbarment as the maximum possible punishment.
4. The court applied the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework courts use to weigh factors that make discipline more or less severe, and found eight aggravating factors present, including prior discipline, dishonest motives, a pattern of misconduct, and vulnerable clients, with no mitigating factors to offset them.
5. Comparing this case to prior Georgia disbarment decisions involving similar patterns of client abandonment, misuse of funds, and failure to cooperate with investigations, the court concluded disbarment was consistent with how it has treated comparable misconduct in the past.

• attorney disbarment
• client abandonment
• misuse of client funds
• State Bar disciplinary proceeding