In the Matter of Andrew Matteson

Andrew Matteson, a Georgia lawyer, faced two disciplinary matters: in one, he failed to tell a client that money meant to pay off construction liens had been used and stopped responding to the client, leading to a lawsuit and a settlement; in the other, he stopped working on a client's case, let the client be found in default, and never told the client about a resulting judgment for over a million dollars. Matteson asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to accept a petition for voluntary discipline, admitting rule violations but asking for only a three- to six-month suspension, citing depression and anxiety as mitigating factors. The State Bar did not object and recommended a six-month suspension. The court refused to accept the petition. It found that Matteson never actually submitted the evidence he claimed supported his mental health treatment or his claim that he had repaid his clients in full, and his proposal included no conditions to prevent future harm if he returned to practice.

The court held that a petition for voluntary discipline must be supported by actual evidence, not just assertions, particularly where an attorney claims mitigating mental health treatment or full restitution to harmed clients, and must include safeguards against a recurrence of misconduct upon reinstatement.

The ruling signals to attorneys seeking reduced discipline through voluntary petitions that unsupported claims about mental health treatment or client restitution will not be accepted, protecting future clients from lawyers who have not proven they addressed the problems that caused their misconduct.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected

1. The court explained that under prior cases, a petition for voluntary discipline can be rejected when the attorney fails to provide proof of the mitigating facts he relies on, such as mental health treatment, rather than merely asserting them.
2. Matteson claimed an exhibit documenting his mental health treatment was attached to his petition, but the exhibit was never actually submitted to the court despite an order allowing it to be filed under seal, leaving his claims unverified.
3. Matteson also claimed both harmed clients had been made whole through settlement and arbitration payments, but he provided no documentation proving those payments were actually completed.
4. The court noted that the proposed discipline included no conditions on Matteson's eventual return to law practice, such as requiring certification of mental fitness from a licensed professional, unlike similar past cases where such conditions were imposed.
5. Because the record lacked proof of mitigating circumstances and lacked any safeguard against future misconduct, the court concluded it could not accept the requested suspension and rejected the petition outright.

• attorney discipline
• voluntary discipline petition
• State Bar of Georgia
• mental health mitigation
• client fund mishandling