In the Matter of Tamorra A. Boyd

Tamorra Boyd, a Georgia lawyer, was accused of letting a California mortgage loan modification company use her name and license, and of failing to provide services to a Georgia couple who hired her through that company. The State Bar filed a formal complaint, but Boyd's lawyer missed the deadline to file an answer, so a special master (a court-appointed officer who handles bar discipline cases) entered a default against her and recommended a six-month suspension without holding a hearing. Boyd asked to have the default lifted, explaining that delays with her malpractice insurer held up her response. The Review Board, which checks the special master's work, thought the case should go back for a real hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed that Boyd's conduct did not look like someone ignoring the process entirely, so it vacated the default ruling and the recommended suspension and sent the case back for a hearing on whether the default should be opened.

The court held that a hearing must be held on the State Bar's motion for default and Boyd's request to open it, because the record suggested Boyd cooperated with the investigation and her failure to timely answer did not amount to an affirmative disregard of the disciplinary process, warranting review under the liberal, merits-favoring default standard.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia lawyers facing bar discipline get a hearing before losing by default when they show they were engaged with the process, not just ignoring it, which affects how the State Bar and special masters handle default motions in future cases.

Vacated and remanded with direction

1. The court explained that Georgia's civil default rules (OCGA § 9-11-55 (b)) apply to bar disciplinary cases, requiring a respondent seeking to reopen a default to show excusable neglect, providential cause, or a 'proper case,' under oath, with a meritorious defense and readiness to proceed.
2. The court noted that the proper-case ground for opening a default should be liberally applied to favor deciding cases on their merits rather than by default, following its recent decision in Bowen v. Savoy.
3. The court observed that typical default cases in bar discipline involve lawyers who completely fail to respond to the proceedings, unlike here, where Boyd acknowledged service, worked with her malpractice insurer to secure counsel, and filed responses, even though they were late and imperfect.
4. Because Boyd's conduct showed engagement with the process rather than disregard for it, the court concluded the special master's default ruling and recommended suspension, along with the Review Board's report, should be vacated so a hearing could determine whether the default should be opened.
5. The court directed that if the default is opened, the case should proceed to discovery and a hearing on the merits, and if the default is upheld again, the special master may consider a separate hearing on mitigating or aggravating factors for punishment.

• attorney discipline
• default judgment
• State Bar of Georgia
• loan modification company
• bar suspension