In the Matter of Daveniya Fisher

A lawyer represented a client in a drug case and agreed to also handle a related civil forfeiture action against the client's house and car without an extra fee. After the client was convicted and later fired the lawyer, the lawyer never formally withdrew from the case and kept getting court notices about the forfeiture matter. She missed several scheduled hearings, including a final one in February 2019, and the court ordered the client's property completely forfeited to the state in her absence. She also failed to respond to the client's complaint to the State Bar or to the Bar's investigation notice. After the Bar filed formal charges, the lawyer admitted to violating three ethics rules covering diligence, communication, and cooperating with Bar investigations, and asked the court to impose a specific, lighter punishment. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the Bar and a special master that a Review Board reprimand, rather than a harsher penalty, was the appropriate discipline given her personal circumstances, lack of prior discipline, and corrective steps.

The court held that a Review Board reprimand, the sanction jointly requested by the attorney and the State Bar, was appropriate discipline for the attorney's admitted violations of the rules requiring diligence, adequate client communication, and cooperation with Bar disciplinary investigations.

The decision shows how Georgia disciplines lawyers who neglect client matters and miss court deadlines, even without dishonest intent. It also illustrates how personal hardship, cooperation, and corrective action can lead to a lighter sanction like a reprimand instead of suspension or disbarment.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; Review Board reprimand imposed

1. The court applies the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which require weighing the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the actual or potential harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors.
2. The lawyer violated her duty of diligence, and her lapses stemmed from negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing, which under the standards generally points toward a reprimand rather than a harsher penalty.
3. In mitigation, the lawyer had no prior discipline, no dishonest or selfish motive, was dealing with serious personal and family medical problems, cooperated with the disciplinary process, showed remorse, and had a good reputation.
4. In aggravation, the lawyer's substantial experience practicing law meant she should have taken better steps to protect her client's interests despite her personal struggles.
5. The court found it highly unlikely the missed hearing caused actual harm to the client because the client faced an uphill battle in the forfeiture case anyway due to her drug conspiracy conviction, though missing a hearing always carries potential for injustice.
6. Because similar past cases involving comparable rule violations resulted in reprimands from the Review Board's predecessor, and because the discipline was the product of negotiation between the Bar and the attorney, a Review Board reprimand fit the circumstances.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• civil forfeiture
• Review Board reprimand
• voluntary discipline petition